University of Colorado Conference on “Women’s Enfranchisement: Beyond the 19th Amendment”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

The University of Colorado Law School’s Byron R. White Center for the Study of American Constitutional Law, directed by Professor Suzette Malveaux, will host its 2020 Ira C. Rothgerber Jr. Conference on Constitutional Law on Friday, April 3, 2020, on the topic:  “Women’s Enfranchisement: Beyond the 19th Amendment.”  This year’s conference will feature three exciting panels of diverse scholars and lawyers with a Keynote Address by Reva Siegel. 

2020 marks the centennial of the 19th Amendment, formally extending suffrage to some, but not all, women. This conference will use the centennial to take stock of how far we’ve come and how far we have to go in terms of formal political enfranchisement, as well as the social and economic empowerment of women more broadly. 

6 general CLE credits have been approved for this free conference, and breakfast and lunch will be served to attendees. Register by March 30.

Location: Wittemyer Courtroom | Wolf Law Building (2450 Kittredge Loop Dr, Boulder, CO 80305)

Time: Friday, April 3, 2020 |8:30 am-5:00 pm


Speakers include

  • Keynote: Reva Siegel (Yale Law)  
  • Panelists: 

Historical Perspectives

  • Carolyn Ramsey (Colorado Law)
  • Susan Schulten (University of Denver, Dept. of History)
  • Julie Suk (CUNY, Graduate Center)
  • Mary Ziegler (Florida State Law)

Barriers to Political Representation

  • Ming Chen (Colorado Law)
  • Atiba Ellis (Marquette Law)
  • Justin Levitt (Loyola Law)
  • Bertrall Ross (Berkeley Law)
  • Dara Strolovitch (Princeton University, Gender & Sexuality Studies)

Lived Equality:  Beyond Formal Political Rights 

  • Chinyere Ezie (Center for Constitutional Rights)
  • Diana Flynn (Lambda Legal)
  • Cary Franklin (University of Texas Law)
  • Aya Gruber (Colorado Law)
  • Scott Skinner-Thompson (Colorado Law)
Share
Posted in Upcoming Conferences | Leave a comment

On Teaching Torts with a Focus on Race and Racism @wrigginsmelaw

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Jennifer Wriggins (Maine) has a post over here at the Race and the Law Prof Blog on Teaching Torts with a Focus on Race and Racism.

Share
Posted in Law Teaching, Race and Racism | Leave a comment

Kids Are Always Welcome in My Law School Classes

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Any student of mine is welcome to bring children to my class any time, no advance notice required.  Child care issues should not get in the way of attendance. We’ll work it out! 

Kids have great perspectives on tax fairness, fiduciary duty, choice of business entity.

I’ve been there myself.  I’m on your side.

Share
Posted in Law Teaching | Leave a comment

High School Students in Idaho Taking on the Tampon Tax – @MHS_Bobcats

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Students at Madison High School in Idaho are taking on the tampon tax. The local newspaper, the Standard Journal, reported here that a group of seniors are proposing solutions as part of their “Project Citizen” work:

Adeline Winn, Madison Jensen, Tanner Averill, Carlie Meredith and Zach Le made up the group.

The group reported that Idaho is one of 32 states that taxes women for menstrual hygiene products. They also reported there is no tax on male enhancement products, and such is unconstitutional.

“We’d like feminine menstrual products to be exempted from Idaho sales tax,” Averill said. ***

When women and girls can’t afford to buy new sanitary products, they’ll reuse products thus putting them at risk for toxic shock syndrome, a fatal bacterial infection. Other times, women rely on cloths, rags, tissues, toilet paper and paper towels from public restrooms, she said.

The group reported the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stating that one in five women struggle to buy menstrual products at least once a month. The average woman spends up to $300 a year on feminine hygiene products, and that cost doubles should there be daughters in the home.

The group suggested that each of the Madison High School’s seven girl’s restrooms be stocked with free sanitary napkins and tampons. Currently, the school charges 25 cents for each. It would cost the school an estimated $760 a month to refill dispensers. Buying such products would help girls focus on class and relieve them of embarrassing situations, they said.

Le said that eliminating the tax on menstrual products would benefit women and their families.

Kudos to these students for raising awareness of the issue and coming up with practical solutions. People of all ages are leading the way on menstrual equity and justice. We see you, Madison High School students!

Share
Posted in Activism, Women and Economics, Women's Health | Leave a comment

New Book Announcement: David S. Cohen & Carole Joffee, “Obstacle Course: The Everyday Struggle to Get an Abortion in America:

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

The University of California Press has published a new book, Obstacle Course: The Everyday Struggle to Get an Abortion in America, by David S. Cohen (Drexel) and Carole Joffe (Sociology, UCSF).  Here is the publisher’s description:

It seems unthinkable that citizens of one of the most powerful nations in the world must risk their lives and livelihoods in the search for access to necessary health care. And yet it is no surprise that in many places throughout the United States, getting an abortion can be a monumental challenge. Anti-choice politicians and activists have worked tirelessly to impose needless restrictions on this straightforward medical procedure that, at best, delay it and, at worst, create medical risks and deny women their constitutionally protected right to choose. 

Obstacle Course tells the story of abortion in America, capturing a disturbing reality of insurmountable barriers people face when trying to exercise their legal rights to medical services. Authors David S. Cohen and Carole Joffe lay bare the often arduous and unnecessarily burdensome process of terminating a pregnancy: the sabotaged decision-making, clinics in remote locations, insurance bans, harassing protesters, forced ultrasounds and dishonest medical information, arbitrary waiting periods, and unjustified procedure limitations.

Based on patients’ stories as well as interviews with abortion providers and allies from every state in the country, Obstacle Course reveals the unstoppable determination required of women in the pursuit of reproductive autonomy as well as the incredible commitment of abortion providers. Without the efforts of an unheralded army of medical professionals, clinic administrators, counselors, activists, and volunteers, what is a legal right would be meaningless for the almost one million people per year who get abortions. There is a better way—treating abortion like any other form of health care—but the United States is a long way from that ideal. 

Share
Posted in Feminist Legal Scholarship, Reproductive Rights | Comments Off on New Book Announcement: David S. Cohen & Carole Joffee, “Obstacle Course: The Everyday Struggle to Get an Abortion in America:

Suffolk Law Seeks Spring 2021 Trusts & Estates Visitor

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Suffolk University Law School in Boston is looking for a Spring 20201 visitor to teach Trusts & Estates.  Here is the info:

Suffolk University Law School in Boston invites applications for a position as a Visiting Professor for the Spring semester of the upcoming academic school year (Spring 2021), with the primary responsibility of teaching two sections of the course in Trusts and Estates (one day and one evening section).  Applications should be received by February 17 (although applications will be considered on a rolling basis until the position is filled) and must include a letter detailing desire and qualifications to teach Trusts and Estates, as well as a curriculum vitae.  Applications should be addressed to Professor Rosanna Cavallaro (rcavalla@suffolk.edu) and uploaded to the Suffolk University website via Jobvite.

Suffolk University is an equal opportunity employer. The University is dedicated to the goal of building a diverse and inclusive faculty and staff who contribute to the robust exchange of ideas on campus, and who are committed to teaching and working in a diverse environment.  We strongly encourage applications from groups historically marginalized or underrepresented because of race/color, gender, religious creed, disability, national origin, veteran status or LGBTQ status.

Suffolk University does not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, national origin, ancestry, religious creed, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, age, genetic information, or status as a veteran in admission to, access to, treatment in, or employment in its programs, activities, or employment.

Share
Posted in Academia, Law Teaching | Comments Off on Suffolk Law Seeks Spring 2021 Trusts & Estates Visitor

LSU Law Center: Visiting Position Open 2020-2021 for Academic Year, or Fall 2020 or Spring 2021 Semester

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, PAUL M. HEBERT LAW CENTER seeks to hire a visiting professor for the 2020-21 academic year or for Fall 2020 and/or Spring 2021 in the following areas: federal courts, constitutional law, civil procedure, and evidence. Applicants should have a J.D. from an ABA-accredited law school, superior academic credentials, and a commitment to outstanding teaching.
The Paul M. Hebert Law Center of LSU is an Equal Opportunity/Equal Access Employer and is committed to building a culturally diverse faculty. We particularly welcome and encourage applications from female and minority candidates.
The Faculty Appointments Committee will begin reviewing applications on February 7, 2020 and will consider applications thereafter on a rolling basis until the position is filled. Applications should include a letter of application, resume, references, and teaching evaluations (if available) to:


Melissa T. Lonegrass and Christina M. Sautter
Co-Chairs, Faculty Appointments Committee
c/o Pam Hancock (or by email to phancock@lsu.edu)
Paul M. Hebert Law Center
Louisiana State University
1 East Campus Drive
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803-0106

Share
Posted in Academia | Comments Off on LSU Law Center: Visiting Position Open 2020-2021 for Academic Year, or Fall 2020 or Spring 2021 Semester

CFP: Taxation and Gender Equality, Sept. 14-15, 2020

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Taxation and Gender Equality Conference:

Research Roundtable and Policy Program

September 14-15, 2020

Deadline for Expressions of Interest: March 15, 2020

As the Organizers and members of the Academic Advisory Committee we are pleased to issue this Announcement and Call for Contributions to an event that will be held on September 14 and 15, 2020, in Washington, DC, to explore the interaction between tax law and gender equality. The goal of the Conference, which is sponsored by the Tax Policy Center, the American Tax Policy Institute, the American Bar Foundation, and, subject to the final approval of their boards, the Tax Section of the American Bar Association and the American College of Tax Counsel, is to shine a spotlight on gender issues in taxation and to bring consideration of gender impacts into mainstream discussions surrounding the enactment and administration of tax laws. The intended scope of the Conference is broad, focusing not only on gender issues in U.S. tax law but also on gender issues in the tax laws of other countries; it will consider all taxes, whether income, consumption, transfer, wealth, or other national-level taxes, as well as subnational taxes.

The Conference will begin on Monday, September 14, 2020 at the Washington, DC, offices of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman with a research roundtable featuring principally academic papers. The research roundtable will follow the format typical of academic conferences, providing ample time for conversation among participants. 

The second day of the Conference, Tuesday, September 15, 2020, will be held at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, also in Washington, DC. It will consist of a policy-oriented program of panel discussions bringing together academics, practicing attorneys, economists, policy makers, legislators and others to consider issues related to gender and taxation and to consider strategies for incorporation of gender-related concerns into everyday tax policy discourse. At least one panel will feature the recent work undertaken by the National Women’s Law Center exploring the relationship between taxation and gender (see https://nwlc-ciw49tixgw5lbab.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/NWLC-Tax-Executive-Summary-Accessible.pdf).

Continue reading

Share
Posted in Academia | Comments Off on CFP: Taxation and Gender Equality, Sept. 14-15, 2020

@PaceLawReview CFP: Reforms in the NY State Criminal Justice System

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

The Pace Law Review at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University invites submissions for an interdisciplinary conference on the theme of “Game-changing Reforms in the NYS Criminal Justice System and How to Implement Them” to be held on March 20, 2020, at the NYS Judicial Institute on the campus of the law school. 

In the last few years, culminating in the last legislative session, the New York State Legislature, the New York State courts, as well as the government of New York City, have enacted several far-reaching reforms in criminal procedure and related criminal justice issues. These changes include (but are not limited to) the following: raising the age of criminal responsibility to 18 years; comprehensive bail reform; discovery reform; significant changes in the speedy trial statute; the anticipated closing of the Rikers Island detention and correctional facilities; significant changes in the imposition of solitary confinement of state prisoners; the expansion of the use of desk appearance tickets (and the consequent reduction of the number of custodial overnight detentions); expansion of the use of video-recorded police interrogations; expanded use of police body cameras in NYC; proliferation of conviction integrity programs in New York State district attorney’s offices; creation of a Prosecutorial Conduct Commission; and the substantial increase in funding of public defender offices statewide as part of the Hurrell-Harring case settlement. Each of these reforms deserves considered analysis and debate.

This symposium will provide a forum for policymakers, jurists, academics, criminal law practitioners (on both the prosecution and defense side), students, and concerned citizens to engage in a thorough discussion of criminal justice reform. These changes share some common themes—an overall trend towards decarceration, increased use of modern technology in street policing, and increased emphasis on the prosecutorial obligation to share information, accelerate the process, avoid misconduct and prevent or correct wrongful convictions.

These changes in New York State reflect national trends in favor of bail and discovery reform, decarceration, and increased concern about wrongful convictions. They also reflect changes in the modern prosecutor’s role and a 21st century model of organized policing. Fixing a close gaze on New York’s and upstate and downstate counties will provide insight for our national discussion about how we should create and maintain a just criminal process.

New York is one of the largest states in the nation and has an extensive criminal justice system. Significant changes in the law, like those listed above, will have significant effects in other states as well. The far-reaching impact of these reforms might include changes in policy, distribution of resources, rethinking what we mean by fairness and due process in criminal matters, and the proper balance between social control and individual liberty—all are implicated in these reforms. Our federal system contemplates the various states as “laboratories” of justice. With these reforms, New York once again is coming to the forefront in that role. A Pace Law Review symposium issue containing excellent and insightful scholarship on matters of criminal justice policy, procedure, practice, and jurisprudence would be a valuable resource both locally and nationally.

The Pace Law Review and the Pace Criminal Justice Institute invite you to be a part of that discussion.

We welcome full-length traditional law review articles with a maximum of 65 pages, as well as shorter essays and commentaries with a minimum of 10 pages. Authors will be selected based on brief abstracts of their articles, essays, or commentaries. We are looking for different perspectives on the goals and challenges of implementing the historic criminal justice reforms throughout New York State.

To submit, please send:

  1. Name, title, and professional affiliation
  2. Curriculum vitae/resume
  3. Contact details, including phone number and email address
  4. A two to three-page abstract summarizing your article or essay and indicating the expected page length of your paper. 

Please submit your abstract for consideration to: Managing Editor Mellis Bakir at: mbakir@law.pace.edu.

Submission Deadlines

Abstract Deadline: February 3, 2020

Selection Notification Date: February 14, 2020

Article/Essay Deadline: TBD

If you have any questions about this call for papers, please contact Mellis Bakir at: mbakir@law.pace.edu or Carol Barry (Director of the Pace Criminal Justice Institute) at: cbarry@law.pace.edu.

Share
Posted in Call for Papers or Participation, Criminal Law | Comments Off on @PaceLawReview CFP: Reforms in the NY State Criminal Justice System

@NWULRev Online Symposium on “The Common Law Inside the Female Body” by @BernsteinAnita

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

The Northwestern University Law Review Online has published a symposium issue devoted to Anita Bernstein’s book, The Common Law Inside the Female Body (Cambridge University Preimage from www.google.comss 2019), including a response by Professor Bernstein.  Here is the publisher’s description of the book:

In The Common Law Inside the Female Body, Anita Bernstein explains why lawyers seeking gender progress from primary legal materials should start with the common law. Despite its reputation for supporting conservatism and inequality, today’s common law shares important commitments with feminism, namely in precepts and doctrines that strengthen the freedom of individuals and from there the struggle against the subjugation of women. By re-invigorating both the common law – with a focus on crimes, contracts, torts, and property – and feminist jurisprudence, this highly original work anticipates a vital future for a pair of venerable jurisprudential traditions. It should be read by anyone interested in understanding how the common law delivers an extraordinary degree of liberty and security to all persons – women included.

Here are the essays in the symposium line-up:

Bridget J. Crawford, The Common Law as Silver Slippers
David S. Cohen, The Promise and Peril of a Common Law Right to Abortion
Joanna L. Grossman, Women are (Allegedly) People, Too
Cyra Akila Choudhury, The Common Law as a Terrain of Feminist Struggle
Margaret Chon, Intellectual Property Infringement and the Right to Say No
Maritza I. Reyes, The Female Body in the Workplace: Judges and the Common Law
Teri A. McMurtry-Chubb, In Search of the Common Law Inside the Black Female Body
Anita Bernstein, Negative Liberty Meets Positive Social Change

Share
Posted in Feminist Legal Scholarship, Recommended Books | Comments Off on @NWULRev Online Symposium on “The Common Law Inside the Female Body” by @BernsteinAnita

Muriel Gold Senior Visiting Professorship at McGill University @mcgillu

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

MURIEL GOLD SENIOR VISITING PROFESSORSHIP
Institute for Gender, Sexuality and Feminist Studies
McGill University
2020-2021
 
The Institute for Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies (IGSF) at McGill University, Montreal, Canada invites applications for the position of Muriel Gold Visiting Professor. This position is open to professors who wish to spend one or two academic terms in a university environment in order to carry out research on gender, sexuality or feminist studies. The Institute offers work space and support, an ongoing seminar program, contact with other professors within McGill and in neighbouring universities – all this located at the centre of a stimulating, bilingual, urban environment.
 
The Visiting Professor position is ideal for faculty with research leave funding, a portable research fellowship, or sabbatical. Preference will be given to professors who already hold faculty positions. Research funding in the amount of $5,000 for the Muriel Gold Senior Visiting Professor is available from the IGSF. Visiting professors also participate in our Esquisses works in progress talk series, and have an opportunity to present and discuss their research with an engaged and enthusiastic research community.
 
If interested, please send a one page proposal via email with the header “Muriel Gold Visiting Professorship,” describing the research that would be undertaken while in residence as a Visiting Professor, a copy or link to a recent publication, an up-to-date curriculum vitae and an indication of what period you would like for your tenure as IGSF Visiting Professor to:
 
Miranda Hickman, Acting Director
Institute for Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies (IGSF)
3487 Peel Street, 2nd floor
Montreal, QC H3A 1W7
 
While we may be able to provide administrative advice on the following matters, we ask that IGSF visiting professors assume full responsibility on matters relating to visa applications, health insurance, housing and living expenses. Please note in particular that Canada does not pay for hospital or medical services for visitors. We ask all visiting professors to ensure to have health insurance to cover any medical costs for the duration of your visit to Canada.
 
APPLICATION CLOSING DATE: January 15, 2020 Please submit your application and all documents electronically.
Share
Posted in Fellowships and Funding Opportunities | Comments Off on Muriel Gold Senior Visiting Professorship at McGill University @mcgillu

Feminist Scholarship in “Made At NYPL” Exhibit @nypl

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

I recently visited the New York Public Library to see the exhibit Made at NYPL, a celebration of “a small by representative sample of original works that were produced using the Library’s unique and extensive resources.”  Among the featured works are two that likely are familiar to law profs:

  • Annette Gordon-Reed & Peter S. Onuf, “Most Blessed of the Patriarchs”: Thomas Jefferson and the Empire of Imagination  (2016)
  • Barbara Goldsmith, Other Powers: The Age of Suffrage, Spiritualism, and the Scandalous Victoria Woodhull (1999)
  • Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (1963)

Two excerpts from Friedan’s book capture how important the library was (is) to writers:

Without that superb institution, the Frederick Lewis Allen Room of the New York Public Library and its provision to a writer of quiet work space and continuous access to research sources, this particular mother of three might never have started a book, much less finished it.

I sat for many days in the New York Public Library, going back through bound volumes of American women’s magazines for the last twenty years. I found a change in the image of the American woman, and in the boundaries of the woman’s world, as sharp and puzzling as the changes revealed in cores of ocean sediment.

It’s an informative exhibit, for anyone who lives in the city or happens to be passing through.  More info is available here.

 

Share
Posted in Feminism and Culture, Feminist Legal History, Feminist Legal Scholarship | Comments Off on Feminist Scholarship in “Made At NYPL” Exhibit @nypl

Utah Poised to Repeal #Tampon Tax

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Yesterday the Utah legislature passed a bill that will exempt from menstrual products (tampons, pads, etc.) from state sales tax.  Read more here.

Share
Posted in Women and Economics, Women's Health | Comments Off on Utah Poised to Repeal #Tampon Tax

Johnson, Crawford & Waldman on “Title IX and Menstruation”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Margaret Johnson (Baltimore), Emily Waldman (Pace) and I have posted to SSRN our article Title IX and Menstruation, forthcoming next year in the Harvard J.L. & Gender.  Here is the abstract:

“Oh no. Could I borrow a tampon or pad?” These (or similar) words are familiar to almost everyone who has ever had a period. Even for adults, menstruation can at times be a challenge. For some schoolchildren, it can feel like an insurmountable obstacle to receiving an education. Students are subject to constant observation by classmates and teachers; they may not have autonomous access to a bathroom during the school day; or they may not be able to afford menstrual products. As a result, a menstruating student may find it difficult to concentrate in school or even attend school at all, depending on the circumstances. This Article explores the intersection of menstruation and education to uncover the impediments faced by girls and other students who menstruate.  Students may experience menstruation-related peer harassment, restrictive school policies, a lack of access to menstrual products, and inadequate menstruation-related education.  Because menstruation is uniquely associated with female biology, a school’s failure to address the needs of menstruating students amounts to a denial of educational opportunities on the basis of sex under Title IX.

In recent years, students themselves have played notable roles in successful efforts to cause schools to provide free pads or tampons to students. Currently most states do not require schools to do so. Even in states where schools have a legal obligation to provide menstrual products to students, availability is only one part of a larger problem. Unless students can access bathroom facilities in response to their biological needs, and do so without shame, stigma or restriction, students may risk bleeding during class, failing to change tampons or pads as medically recommended, or even leaving (or skipping) school. This Article argues that pursuant to Title IX, schools should provide students with an education free of unnecessary anxiety about the natural biological process of menstruation.  This freedom from anxiety is a necessary precondition for girls, boys, women, men and people of all genders to have meaningful opportunities to fully participate in all aspects of public life.

The full article is available here. Our article focuses mostly on education in grades 3 through 12, but the arguments are equally applicable to higher education contexts, too. 

Share
Posted in Feminism and Culture, Feminist Legal Scholarship, Primary and Secondary Education, Women's Health | Comments Off on Johnson, Crawford & Waldman on “Title IX and Menstruation”

Research Travel Grants for Susan Bulkeley Butler Women’s Archives @Purdue Archives

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

From the Purdue University Archives:
 
The Susan Bulkeley Butler Women’s Archives at the Purdue University Archives announces Research Travel Grants for those planning to travel in order to use materials at the Purdue Archives in 2020. Grants of up to $2,000 will be awarded to individual scholars.
 
The Women’s Archives collects, preserves, and makes available for research original and rare materials that capture the often overlooked and under-represented stories of women and their communities in Purdue and Indiana’s past. Our collections include papers, photographs, audio-visual materials, digital media, rare books, and select artifacts documenting women faculty, staff, and students at Purdue University; organizations and programs at Purdue that support women; and significant women and women’s organizations in Indiana.
 
Notable collections include those documenting the history of the Deans of Women at Purdue; collections on women’s issues such as the Sisters for Health Education (S.H.E.) records and the Helen B. Schleman papers; the Paulina T. Merritt papers on the Indiana Women’s Suffrage Movement; and the personal papers of industrial engineers Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, among many others.
 
For descriptions of our collections, see Women’s Archives here
 
For information about eligibility, criteria, and the application process, see Research and Travel Grants here
 
The deadline for applications is January 17, 2020.
Share
Posted in Fellowships and Funding Opportunities, Feminist Legal Scholarship | Comments Off on Research Travel Grants for Susan Bulkeley Butler Women’s Archives @Purdue Archives

Carbado & Harris on “Anti-Essentialism, Intersectionality, and Dominance Theory”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

In June, 2019, Devon Carbado (UCLA) and Cheryl Harris (UCLA)  published an important essay, Intersectionality at 30: Mapping the Margins of Anti-Essentialism, Intersectionality, and Dominance Theory, 132 Harv. L. Rev. 2193 (2019). It provides an excellent and nuanced understanding of three important intellectual developments in feminist legal theory in the last 30 years. It should be required reading for anyone who teaches or studies in the field. Here are Carbado and Harris’ three main arguments:

This Essay advances three core claims. First, intersectionality is often erroneously conflated with anti-essentialism and thus many readers erroneously perceive a strong opposition between intersectionality and dominance theory on the view that dominance theory is essentialist and that intersectionality is not. In the context of disaggregating intersectionality from anti-essentialism, we contest the view that feminism and critical theory must always avoid essentialism to achieve normative commitments to social transformation. Second, we argue that scholars have largely overlooked the fact that dominance theory and intersectionality share a critique of conceptions of equality structured around sameness and difference. Third, we contend that while there is an affiliation between dominance theory and intersectionality, there is also at least some tension between their respective framings of race and gender.

The full essay is available here.

Share
Posted in Academia | Comments Off on Carbado & Harris on “Anti-Essentialism, Intersectionality, and Dominance Theory”

Sex Inequality in the U.S. and French #Tax Laws

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Mary Roche Waller (Michigan JD 2017) has published Sex Inequality in the United States and French Income Tax Filing Systems, 73 Tax Lawyer 207 (2019). Here is the abstract:

This Article explains and compares the joint and family income taxation structures in the U.S. and France, respectively, and discusses how these structures contribute to sex inequality. The Article also addresses the rationales for a joint or family structure and offers three possible approaches for reducing the sex inequality in the tax systems in the U.S. and France, including a secondary earner deduction, increased child-care subsidies or deductions, or a switch to an individual taxation structure. The Article concludes that the U.S. and France could better reach sex equality goals by moving to an individual filing system.

The full article is available on the ABA website here (paywall for now; sorry).

Share
Posted in Feminism and Families, Sisters In Other Nations, Women and Economics | Comments Off on Sex Inequality in the U.S. and French #Tax Laws

Constitutional Court of Colombia Invalidates Tax on Menstrual Hygiene Products, Requires Bogotá to Provide Supplies for Homeless Women

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Mónica Arango Olaya (DPhil Student, Oxford) has a fantastic write-up of two recent decisions by the Colombian Constitutional Court:

In late 2018, the Court adopted Decision C-117 of 2018, holding that a provision imposing 5% VAT tax on tampons and sanitary pads violated women´s rights to equality, autonomy, and access to a minimum core standard of life. The petitioners had argued that the tax did not consider women’s economic ability to access essential goods that only they were obliged to use (given that there were no comparable alternative products in the market).

The Court recognized that there was a high margin of discretion for the legislature in tax law. Nonetheless, it could not infringe the principles of reasonableness and non-discrimination. The Court also affirmed that the tax violated the principle of “no taxation without representation”, as Congress never discussed why tampons and sanitary pads should be taxed, despite being irreplaceable goods used only by women. More importantly, it underscored two points. First, women´s ability to appear in and navigate public spaces, and participate in all the dimensions of public life, is necessarily contingent on access to sanitary pads and tampons. While the Court acknowledged the existence of alternatives like the cup and menstrual underwear, it also found that these options were effectively inaccessible for rural women, and indeed for the majority of women, who lived on the minimum wage. Effective access was thus held to be interrelated with the protection of other rights, such as the rights to health, education, autonomy and dignity. * **

More recently, building upon the previous case, the Court affirmed in Decision T-398 of 2019 that the city of Bogota had violated the rights to dignity, autonomy as well as the sexual and reproductive rights of a woman living on the streets, by not including in their policies the provision of sanitary pads. The Court found that women in vulnerable positions, with no knowledge of menstrual hygiene, had to look through trash cans to find products to manage their flow. This was a breach of the State´s positive duties to provide minimum goods for the most vulnerable.

The full post is here at the Oxford Human Rights Hub.

Share
Posted in Sisters In Other Nations, Women and Economics, Women's Health | Comments Off on Constitutional Court of Colombia Invalidates Tax on Menstrual Hygiene Products, Requires Bogotá to Provide Supplies for Homeless Women

Goldblatt & Steele on “Inequality Related to Menstruation”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Beth Goldblatt (University of Technology Sydney) and Linda Steele (University of Technology Sydney) have published a new article, Bloody Unfair: Inequality Related to Menstruation – Considering the Role of Discrimination Law, 41 Sydney L. Rev. 293 (2019):

Drawing on growing social awareness, activism and scholarship, this article examines menstruation as an equality issue and the implications for discrimination law in Australia. It discusses the complex nature of inequality that arises in relation to menstruation. It also considers intersectional discrimination (when a combination of attributes generates a new form of discrimination) that occurs in relation to menstruation facing different groups: women and girls with disabilities, incarcerated women, and transgender, gender-diverse and intersex people. The article considers how some forms of inequality related to menstruation might be addressed through discrimination law (workplace adjustments and provision of menstrual products in carceral settings) and points to limitations of discrimination law or its application, such as in relation to sterilisation of women and girls with disabilities and strip searching of incarcerated women. It concludes that Australian discrimination law can only have a limited impact in addressing menstrual inequality. This is because: (a) the structure of the law is attribute-based and thus cannot address the complex intersections of sex and other attributes; (b) it cannot address structural inequality; and (c) it cannot adequately contend with embodied and abjected legal subjects. These conclusions have radical implications beyond menstruation inequality in contributing to broader discussions of how law can re-imagine gender difference and advance equality.

The full article is available here.

 

 

Share
Posted in Sexual Harassment, Sisters In Other Nations, Women and Economics, Women's Health | Comments Off on Goldblatt & Steele on “Inequality Related to Menstruation”

Creighton Law Seeks Tenured or Tenure-Track Director of Clinical Programs

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

From colleagues at Creighton:

Creighton University School of Law is seeking qualified applicants for the position of Director of Clinical Programs. This position is tenured or tenure eligible.  Creighton University is a Jesuit university, and as such is committed to the training of students in service to others, and recognizes the importance of family life,  the inalienable worth of each individual and values ethnic and cultural diversity as core values. In keeping with Creighton’s  Ignatian tradition of inclusivity and compassion, we seek a caring, hospitable environment for everyone, regardless of age, culture, faith, ethnicity, immigrant status, race, gender, sexual orientation, language, physical appearance, physical ability or social class.

Interviews begin by January 20, 2020.

For full details, and to make an application, see here.

 

Share
Posted in Chutes and Ladders | Comments Off on Creighton Law Seeks Tenured or Tenure-Track Director of Clinical Programs

Schlessinger Library @RadInstitute Grants

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

The Schlesinger Library on the History of Women in America has a research grant program. The summer grant deadline is November 15, 2019. There are term-time grants, too. Check out the website for more info here.

Share
Posted in Fellowships and Funding Opportunities | Comments Off on Schlessinger Library @RadInstitute Grants

@UofELawSchool Edinburgh Appoints Laura Macgregor Chair of Scots Law – First Woman to Hold Same Chair Hume Did

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

From  The Journal of the Law Society of Scotland:

Professor Laura Macgregor has been appointed to the Chair of Scots Law at Edinburgh Law School.

The chair is the second oldest in Edinburgh Law School. Established in 1722, with Alexander Bayne its first incumbent, it has been held by legal luminaries such as John Erskine, David Hume, George Joseph Bell, Sir John Rankine and, most recently, Kenneth Reid. In the 297 years since its creation, Professor Macgregor will be the first woman to hold it.

Professor Macgregor spent several years as a practising solicitor with two Edinburgh law firms, before beginning her academic career at the University of Glasgow in 1997. She joined the Edinburgh Law School in 2002. Her interests lie in the field of commercial law, and her research considers Scots law in its comparative context, both European and global. She is the author of The Law of Agency in Scotland (2013), published in the Scottish Universities Law Institute series. Currently undertaking research into the law of partnership, her recent article, “Partnerships and Legal Personality: Cautionary Tales from Scotland” will be published in 2020 in the Journal of Corporate Law Studies.

On the subject of her appointment, Professor Macgregor said: “I am absolutely delighted to be appointed to this historic and important chair within Edinburgh Law School. It is a challenging time to take on this role, with events such as Brexit lying over the horizon. Supported by my excellent colleagues in private law, I am confident that we can meet such challenges, ultimately achieving our aim of creating a diverse, inclusive and welcoming place to study.”

Professor Macgregor will take up her new role from 1 July 2020.

Share
Posted in Firsts | Comments Off on @UofELawSchool Edinburgh Appoints Laura Macgregor Chair of Scots Law – First Woman to Hold Same Chair Hume Did

@CarolineMCorbin on “The Supreme Court’s Facilitation of White Christian Nationalism”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Caroline Mala Corbin (Miami) has posted to SSRN her article The Supreme Court’s Facilitation of White Christian Nationalism (Alabama Law Review, forthcoming).  Here is the abstract:

Doug Jager, a band student of Native American ancestry, complained about the Christian prayers at his Georgia public school’s football games. Rather than address his concerns, the school lectured him on Christianity and proposed an alternative that appeared neutral yet would have still resulted in Christian prayers. In striking down the school’s proposal, Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr. understood some of the ramifications of state-sponsored Christianity.

Despite Supreme Court rulings limiting Christian invocations at public school events, government-sponsored Christian prayers and Christian symbols remain plentiful and constitutional in the United States. This proliferation of government-sponsored Christianity around the country both reflects and strengthens Christian nationalism.

Christian nationalism maintains that the United States is and should be a Christian nation, and Christian nationalism’s defining characteristic is the belief that religious identity and national identity overlap completely. Christian nationalism necessarily implies a hierarchy based on religion, with Christian insiders who are true Americans and non-Christian outsiders who are not. Moreover, studies show that those with strong identification with Christian nationalism have more hostile attitudes towards out-groups, religious and otherwise. That hostility paves the way for hostile public policy. Consequently, Christian nationalism does not simply lead to symbolic exclusion from the community and nation, it may lead to actual exclusion.

Thus, as the sociological evidence establishes, the harm of government-sponsored Christianity is not just offense, but discriminatory attitudes and discriminatory policies. The insight embedded in Establishment Clause doctrine that the government should not favor one religion over others is borne out by contemporary social science. As a result, instead of eviscerating separation of church and state, it ought to be recognized as more important than ever.

The full article is available here.

Share
Posted in Feminism and Religion, Feminist Legal Scholarship | Comments Off on @CarolineMCorbin on “The Supreme Court’s Facilitation of White Christian Nationalism”

80% of Teens Report Missing Class Time or Knowing Someone Who Has Missed Class Time Because of Lack of Access to Menstrual Hygiene Products

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

The results of a Harris Insights & Analytics poll of 1000 teens ages 13-19, sponsored by Thinx and PERIOD, are here. Some of the salient findings:

Two-thirds of teens have felt stress due to lack of access to period products.

20% (1 in 5 teens) have struggled to afford period products or were not able to purchase them at all.

61% have worn a tampon or pad for more than 4 hours because they did not have enough access to period products (puts them at risk of infection and TSS).

84% (more than 4 in 5 teens) have either missed class time or know someone who missed class time because they did not have access to period products.

25% (1 in 4 teens) have missed class because of lack of access to period products.

83% (more than 4 in 5 teens) think lack of access to period products is an issue that is not talked about enough.

More than 4 in 5 teens have either missed class time or know a classmate who missed class time because they did not have access to period products.

Read the full report here.

Share
Posted in Primary and Secondary Education, Women and Economics, Women's Health | Comments Off on 80% of Teens Report Missing Class Time or Knowing Someone Who Has Missed Class Time Because of Lack of Access to Menstrual Hygiene Products

Period Poverty in the U.S.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

  at Direct Relief hosted a podcast on the topic here.

Here’s a summary of the program, which features Jennifer Weiss-Wolf of Period Equity:

Pads and tampons are a simple necessity, yet women across America are going without them. The cost of these products make them inaccessible for many low-income women struggling to make ends meet. These women often forgo menstrual hygiene products in order to afford for other basic necessities. Without tampons or pads, women resort to using rags, toilet paper, or even adult diapers. The problem has garnered national attention and stoked advocacy campaigns across the United States. While activists work to pass policies that would increase women’s access to period products, women on the margins continue to struggle with the problem on a monthly basis.

Share
Posted in Women and Economics, Women's Health | Comments Off on Period Poverty in the U.S.

UConn Dean’s Search

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

The University of Connecticut has announced the opening of the search for the next Dean of the School of Law.  The official announcement — together with information about applications and nominations as well as links to the position description — can be found here.

Share
Posted in Academia, Chutes and Ladders | Comments Off on UConn Dean’s Search

Joshi on “Affirmative Action as Transitional Justice”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Yuvraj Joshi (doctoral candidate, Yale Law School) has posted to SSRN his article Affirmative Action as Transitional Justice, 2020 Wisc. L. Rev. (forthcoming). Here is the abstract:

What role does affirmative action play in transitioning toward a more just society? The two literatures best equipped to answer this question — transitional justice and affirmative action — have neglected both the question and one another. Transitional justice scholars have focused on a limited set of measures (such as truth commissions and criminal prosecutions) and overlooked the role of affirmative action in facilitating transition. At the same time, affirmative action scholars have neglected the ways affirmative action may be part of a larger transitional justice project. Bringing these literatures into conversation for the first time, this Article shows how integrating affirmative action and transitional justice can advance our understanding of both practices. Affirmative action can bring attention to structural inequalities in transitional societies and help delineate the boundaries of transitional justice. In so doing, affirmative action can bridge a divide between the field of transitional justice and the phenomenon of societal transition that it seeks to understand and facilitate. Transitional justice, on the other hand, can elucidate how the period of transition informs affirmative action’s features and functions; it can also illuminate affirmative action’s strengths and shortcomings in bringing about a more just society. Affirmative action should therefore be added to the transitional justice ‘toolkit’ and anchored in transitional justice concepts and debates.

Read the full article here.

Share
Posted in Feminist Legal Scholarship | Comments Off on Joshi on “Affirmative Action as Transitional Justice”

Same-Sex Voting and Phallocentric Legislation—Toward Next Era Democracy?

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

The present battle over reproductive rights is an attempted coup by conservatives, who see an opportune moment. Ushered in by the election of Donald Trump as well as the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, some see it as an opportunity to overturn the right to abortion. It is peculiar that such a case could be made under the leadership of Trump, whose own life is a poster-child for careless, wanton, and assaultive attitudes toward sex. It is strange that the move to tighten abortion comes from a party whose leader has led a playboy life, preying on women, paying to silence women, and having all sorts of illicit affairs during and in-between his three marriages. Even if Trump embodies exactly why the option of abortion should be a woman’s choice, it is obvious that Republicans believe that the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court signals an opportunity.

That Kavanaugh, himself accused of sexual assault and other sexual misconduct, should be the vote that turns the tide is even more remarkable. If Trump’s destructive masculinity has so far showed how a man’s carelessness can easily turn into a woman’s pregnancy, Kavanaugh showed a more pernicious side. He has been accused of sexual assault and misconduct by different women, which is also a reminder of the most unfortunate ways that pregnancies can occur—through the use of force or the threat of force by a man. That Kavanaugh’s vote may become the lynchpin for abolishing abortion is the ultimate irony, especially were it to force a woman to carry a child that was the product of sexual assault

The different states moving to reverse reproductive rights have Trump and Kavanaugh to thank for helping engineer the movement. The fact that they are the igniters of this movement is like a warped episode of A Handmaid’s Tale. Under such men and the party that supports them, women find themselves under a legal assault. Such an attack triggers the need to devise new political means of reimagining democracy and pushing back. Two future pathways of resistance may be to advocate for same-sex voting and counter-legislation. It might be time to reimagine voting and start pressing for laws that govern a man’s privates as rigidly as the laws that govern a woman’s womb.

Although it may seem politically naïve to suggest it, a person’s reproductive rights might be best determined along sex lines. It is not far-fetched to allot women as the only class of voters allowed to vote on issues that govern reproductive law and their own body. Likewise, it is already taken for granted that a man should be able to decide these issues, whether he wants to have children, when he does, and with whom. None of these should be hoisted upon him by the state. The same should hold true for women, even though their rights are more precarious since they operate against a history of oppression and inequality, where once upon a time they held the status of being property. Today, women still struggle with inequities and far less political power than their counterparts. It is a stark lesson in gender dominance that men should wield such decisionmaking over female bodies, which makes the current democratic model simply a perpetuation of injustice. Same-sex voting would at least take the male thumb off the scales so that women alone could be the arbiters of any policy that pertains to their body, and the pain and suffering that come with it.

Some might scoff at the idea of same-sex voting, but it is not outlandish to think that there are some issues for which women-only should be allowed to vote. An obvious argument in favor of this idea is the fact that women bear unique burdens and pains of being women, including pregnancy and childbirth. So, the very painful issues at stake are completely unknown to men. Despite this gap, as it stands, men are flexing their power to sentence women to pregnancy, which in some cases might be construed as a sentence of torture. Compared to a system that would let women decide on laws that impact their own bodies and the pain and suffering they must endure, current legislative efforts bear an heir of barbarism. To some, same-sex voting might seem undemocratic, but historical circumstances of this country have created glass ceiling after ceiling for women, while current inequalities persist. Same sex voting would be a step toward a more egalitarian political playing field in which women have a genuine say in what happens to their body.

This move would also further democracy in the sense that it would lead to more equitable and acceptable political outcomes for women. For example, even if a majority of women enacted laws similar to the anti-abortion efforts currently underway, it would likely lead to more women accepting the result compared to today’s system, where a man’s opinion carries the heaviest weight. Today, as in years of old, men are the primary creators of these laws and they are still largely the most important voters. Male dominance of American culture and its legal systems gives males the political upper-hand now and in future efforts to regulate women’s bodies. Congress may be starting to open up to women members, but it and other government institutions still live in the shadows of inequality. Hence, when it comes to decisions about the female body or sexual reproduction, allowing same-sex voting would be a push toward expanding the one-size-fits-all model of voting into one that is more tailored to the lived experiences of women. They are the ones who must experience these unique physical realities, from menstruation and childbirth all the way to menopause.

Whether same-sex voting or other such voting possibilities take root, there is no doubt that phallocentric legislation is being used as a counter-strategy by some. On social media there has been robust discussion on this point, including what it would look like if similar laws were passed for men. Memes have ruminated on mandatory male vasectomies, banning vasectomies, and other restrictions, including getting permission from others before being allowed the procedure. Others have pointed out that over a nine-month period, a man can cause a number of pregnancies, whereas a woman can only have a single pregnancy. Taken wholly, the commentary underscores that the greatest threat of unwanted pregnancies necessarily comes from males.

A more concrete illustration comes from the state of Georgia, where one lawmaker responded to a controversial abortion law by drafting a “testicular bill of rights.” The plan would ban vasectomies and require men to seek permission from their partners before getting a Viagra prescription. Unabashed in its attempt to mirror the type of punitive measures laid out in the abortion law, the proposed law would go even further and make the use of a condom an “aggravated assault” under the criminal law, require DNA testing of a fetus when a woman is 6 weeks to determine the father for child support purposes, in addition to a 24-hour waiting period to purchase pornography or sex toys.

Both counter-legislation and same-sex voting may seem like the bud of a joke, yet one might only imagine if such a trend were to arise, perhaps supported by the spirit of the #MeToo movement. What if male and female bodily and reproductive rights were policed equally such that men patrolled their own bodies, and women did the same for themselves? Such a move would result in a true shift of power since men have been the sole legal guardians of the American legal system for most of the country’s existence and have created nearly all the laws that govern women’s sex and reproductive rights. Perhaps it is time to relinquish this power to whom it rightfully belongs.

Making men feel regulative burdens similar to women, in addition to giving women the exclusive vote over women’s issues, will work to infuse more democracy into the system. To be sure, how we vote is not etched in stone, and there is obviously more than one way to vote. To say that there is only one way is itself not very democratic; it also betrays history, since for a long time, there was only one-sex voting, men. But not all men—only wealthy white men were allowed to vote. To say that voting arrangements cannot be reconfigured is disingenuous since American voting and procedures are always a work in progress. The same holds for the notion of phallocentric legislation. It represents a dramatic way to counter the assault on female bodies by demonstrating why the regulation of male bodies is an even more efficient solution to stemming unwanted pregnancies.

-SpearIt

Share
Posted in Feminism and Politics | Comments Off on Same-Sex Voting and Phallocentric Legislation—Toward Next Era Democracy?

CFP – Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Corporate Law

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

DEADLINE: Friday November 1, 2019

The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project seeks contributors of rewritten judicial opinions and private contracts, and commentaries on rewritten opinions and contracts, for an edited collection tentatively titled Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Corporate Law.  This edited volume is part of a collaboration among law professors and others to rewrite, from a feminist perspective, key judicial decisions in the United States.  The initial volume, Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court, edited by Kathryn M. Stanchi, Linda L. Berger, and Bridget J. Crawford, was published in 2016 by Cambridge University Press.  Cambridge University Press has approved a series of Feminist Judgments books. In 2017, Cambridge University Press published the tax volume titled Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Tax Opinions. Other volumes in the pipeline include rewritten opinions in the areas of reproductive justice, family law, torts, employment discrimination, trusts and estates, health law, and property law. More information about the project can be found here.

Corporate law volume editors are Anne Choike, Usha R. Rodrigues and Kelli Alces Williams. The corporate law volume’s advisory panel is comprised of Alina Ball; Lisa Fairfax; Theresa Gabaldon; Joan MacLeod Heminway; Kristin Johnson; Elizabeth Pollman; Poonam Puri; Darren Rosenblum; Cindy Schipani; Kellye Testy; Cheryl Wade; and Cindy Williams.

With the guidance of the advisory panel, the editors have selected cases that have not appeared in other Feminist Judgments volumes, doctrinally significant cases, and cases that raise issues of particular salience to women’s lives.  This volume also seeks to include a rewritten “contract,” given corporate law’s emphasis upon default law and the precedent-setting power of privately negotiated arrangements. Potential authors are welcome to suggest other opinions or contracts that they would like to address, but the overall number of cases and contracts finally included in the volume must remain limited.

Interested prospective contributors should submit a proposal to either: 1) rewrite an opinion or contract (subject to a 10,000 word limit), or 2) comment on a rewritten opinion (4,000 word limit).  Rewritten opinions may be majority opinions, concurrences, dissents, or private contracts.

Continue reading

Share
Posted in Call for Papers or Participation | Comments Off on CFP – Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Corporate Law

Cook on “Johnny Appleseed: Citizenship Transmission Laws and a White Heteropatriarchal Property Right in Philandering, Sexual Exploitation, and Rape (the “Whp”) or Johnny and the Whp”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Blanche Bong Cook (Kentucky) has posted to SSRN her article, “Johnny Appleseed: Citizenship Transmission Laws and a White Heteropatriarchal Property Right in Philandering, Sexual Exploitation, and Rape (the “Whp”) or Johnny and the Whp, 31 Yale J. L. & Feminism 57 (2019).  Here is the abstract:

Title 8, United States Code, Section 1409—one of this country’s citizenship transmission laws—creates a white heteropatriarchal property right in philandering, sexual exploitation, and rape (the “WHP”). Section 1409 governs the transmission of citizenship from United States citizens to their children, where the child is born abroad, outside of marriage, and one parent is a citizen and the other is not. Section 1409, however, draws a distinct gender distinction between women and men: An unwed female American citizen who births a child outside the United States, fathered by a foreign man, automatically transmits citizenship to her child. An unwed male American citizen, by contrast, who fathers a child abroad with a foreign woman has the distinctly male prerogative to either grant or deny citizenship to his foreign-born nonmarital child at his leisure.

The full article is available here.

Share
Posted in Feminism and Families, Feminist Legal Scholarship, Immigration | Comments Off on Cook on “Johnny Appleseed: Citizenship Transmission Laws and a White Heteropatriarchal Property Right in Philandering, Sexual Exploitation, and Rape (the “Whp”) or Johnny and the Whp”

Hearing Women: Reflections on the Anniversary of Christine Blasey Ford’s Testimony

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

by Stephanie M. Wildman

September 27 marks the anniversary of a skirmish that ranks in the pantheon of modern civilian conflicts over what kind of society America will be. Many believed Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony one year ago about sexual assault she had endured at the hands of then-Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Her composed, measured statement during the confirmation hearing exemplified bravery in the face of adversity.

The Senate and the nation’s response to her testimony underscored the high stakes in the ongoing ideological conflict about who we are as a nation, beyond the obvious prize of a Supreme Court seat. 

The hearing also provided an opportunity to consider race and American racial dynamics which society too often overlooks in the context of whiteness. In fact, the specter of race, America’s persistent issue, hovered above the proceedings, the unspoken ghost in the room. Race remains present even when ignored. 

In 1991, another confirmation hearing for now Justice Clarence Thomas, in which Anita Hill testified about sexual harassment she had experienced, split the nation. Race pervaded the Ford-Kavanaugh hearings in ways different from its presence when Professor Anita Hill testified. In the Hill-Thomas hearings commentators did not ignore race, perhaps because both participants are Black. Yet whites have a race, too, and whiteness impacted society’s views of Professor Blasey Ford and Justice Kavanaugh.

During his hearing, Justice Thomas highlighted his race as a black man, claiming the proceedings amounted to a high-tech lynching. Justice Thomas essentially erased Professor Hill as a black woman, turning sexual harassment into a white woman’s issue. Ironically, black women have been at the forefront of combatting sexual harassment in court cases, just as Professor Hill did by coming forward.

Justice Kavanaugh, in contrast during his hearing, exercised white racial privilege by conducting himself in a manner unthinkable for a Black man. While Dr. Ford epitomized civility, Justice Kavanaugh, in his testimony, exhibited intense anger toward the proceedings and many individuals. Memorably, he engaged in an interchange with Senator Amy Klobuchar that was so disrespectful that he returned from a break and apologized for his outburst. 

Justice Kavanaugh exhibited a white, male, power complaint, as he cast himself as a victim, free to rant away. Picture a black judicial candidate responding as Justice Kavanaugh did. Might the hypothetical black candidate have appeared unreasonable to those who found Justice Kavanaugh’s behavior acceptable? What if Dr. Ford had been loud and complaining? Would she have been seen as “too aggressive” and not credible by those who believed her? 

Many observers defending Justice Kavanaugh urged that a grown man should not be judged harshly based on his behavior as a youth, even if part of the story were true. This attitude toward the criminal justice system highlights another racialized aspect of the hearings. Black and Latino youth find themselves in a school to prison pipeline, beginning with minor offenses or school suspensions. Even these minor offenses tarnish their adult records, making educational attainment and job advancement impossible. Where are their defenders, saying these men should not be judged by the misdemeanors perpetrated in their youth? Society judges youthful indiscretion through the lens of race, with harsher penalties to black and brown children. Imagine Justice Kavanaugh as a Black youth.

In these two transfixing political moments patriotic women subjected themselves to national scrutiny, putting their sense of duty before their personal comfort. But the same result, confirmation of the men accused, ensued, giving a message to women that we do not really matter

An expanded version of these ideas appear in Hearing Women: From Professor Hill to Dr. Ford, 33 Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development __ ( forthcoming 2019).

 

Share
Posted in Courts and the Judiciary, Race and Racism, Sexual Harassment | Comments Off on Hearing Women: Reflections on the Anniversary of Christine Blasey Ford’s Testimony

Allen, Jackson & Harris on “The ‘Pink Ghetto’ Pipeline

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Renée Nicole Allen (St. John’s), Alicia Jackson (FAMU), and DeShun Harris (Memphis) have posted to SSRN their article, The ‘Pink Ghetto’ Pipeline: Challenges and Opportunities for Women in Legal Education, U. Detroit Mercy L. Rev. (forthcoming 2019). Here is the abstract:

The demographics of law schools are changing and women make up the majority of law students. Yet, the demographics of many law faculties do not reflect these changing demographics with more men occupying faculty seats. In legal education, women predominately occupy skills positions, including legal writing, clinic, academic success, bar preparation, or library. According to a 2010 Association of American Law Schools survey, the percentage of female lecturers and instructors is so high that those positions are stereotypically female. The term coined for positions typically held by women is “pink ghetto.” According to the Department of Labor, pink-collar-worker describes jobs and career areas historically considered “women’s work,” and included on the list is teaching. However, in legal education, tenured and higher-ranked positions are held primarily by men, while women often enter legal education through non-tenured and non-faculty skills-based teaching pipelines. In a number of these positions, women experience challenges like poor pay, heavy workloads, and lower status such as by contract, nontenure, or at will. While many may view this as a challenge, looking at these positions solely as a “pink ghetto” diminishes the many contributions women have made to legal education through the skills faculty pipelines. Conversely, we miss the opportunity to examine how legal education has changed and how women have accepted the challenge of being on the front line of educating this new generation of learners while enthusiastically adopting the American Bar Association’s new standards for assessment and student learning. There is an opportunity for women to excel in these positions if we provide them with allies who champion for equal status and provide the requisite support. This article focuses on the changing gender demographics of legal education, legal education pipelines, and the role and status of women in higher education with an emphasis on legal education. The final section applies feminist pedagogy to address challenges, opportunities, and aspirations for women in legal education.

The full article is available here.

Share
Posted in Academia, Law Teaching, The Overrepresentation of Women | Comments Off on Allen, Jackson & Harris on “The ‘Pink Ghetto’ Pipeline

Upcoming Louis Henkin Lecture on Human Rights @MiamiLawSchool

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

If you’ll be in Miami on October 15, 2019, please consider attending this lecture at the University of Miami School of Law:

8th Annual Louis Henkin Lecture on Human Rights

Featuring: 
Catherine Powell
Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law

“Race, Gender, and Nation in an Age of Shifting Borders” 

This lecture will explore two common tropes in the current immigration debate – the “welfare cheat” and the “criminal” – to demonstrate how these narratives shape legal constructs of nationhood and borders as both raced and gendered. Professor Powell will argue that while commentators have rightly criticized the use of racial tropes in the immigration debate, what remains undertheorized is how gender intersects with race, for example, in the controversies over family separation and the rollback of asylum protections. Professor Powell will address this gap and explore how these intersectional tropes impact the legal rights of women and men, particularly through the unstable prisms of motherhood and masculinity. 

Tuesday, October 15th, 2019
6:00 PM

University of Miami School of Law
1311 Miller Road, Room E352
Coral Gables, FL 33146

Share
Posted in Feminism and Families, Immigration, Upcoming Conferences | Comments Off on Upcoming Louis Henkin Lecture on Human Rights @MiamiLawSchool

Why Are Two Naked Men the Logo for Law & Society Association Annual Meeting 2020? @law_soc

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

It is a rather curious graphic.  The LSA website provides only the information: “Logo design by: Joelle Grogan.”

Share
Posted in Upcoming Conferences, Where are the Women? | Comments Off on Why Are Two Naked Men the Logo for Law & Society Association Annual Meeting 2020? @law_soc

Why The Gender Pay Gap Took Center Stage In Michelle Wiliams’s Emmy Speech by @NaomiCahn

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

When Michelle Williams accepted a 2019 Emmy for best actress in a limited series or TV movie for her role as the Broadway dancer and actress Gwen Verdon in FX’s “Fosse/Verdon,” she started with the normal thank yous, and ended with the gender wage gap:

 “The next time a woman — and especially a woman of color, because she stands to make 52 cents on the dollar compared to her white, male counterpart — tells you what she needs in order to do her job, listen to her. Believe her.”

As Williams well knows from personal experience, there is a substantial pay gap in Hollywood, and, in 2018, only one female actor – Scarlett Johansson — appeared on the list of the top 10 highest earning actors.  

(read the rest of the article at Forbes, here)

-Naomi Cahn

Share
Posted in Employment Discrimination, Feminism and Culture | Comments Off on Why The Gender Pay Gap Took Center Stage In Michelle Wiliams’s Emmy Speech by @NaomiCahn

@BernsteinAnita to Receive 2020 William L. Prosser Award

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Anita Bernstein, the Anita and Stuart Subotnick Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, has been named as the recipient of the 2020 AALS Section on Torts and Compensation Systems William L. Prosser Award.  The Prosser Award recognizes “outstanding contributions of law teachers in scholarship, teaching and service” and “a lifetime of truly outstanding contribution to the law of torts.” Past recipients include Guido Calebresi (2011), Richard Posner (2012), Jane Stapleton (2013), James Henderson, Jr. (2014), Michael Green (2015), Aaron Twerski (2016),  Stephen Sugarman (2017), Marshall Shapo (2018), and Ken Simons (2019).

Professor Bernstein’s law review articles include For and Against Marriage: A Revision, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 129 (2003); Treating Sexual Harassment with Respect, 111 Harv. L. Rev. 445 (1997); How to Make a New Tort: Three Paradoxes, 75 Tex. L. Rev. 1539 (1997); and Law, Culture and Harassment, 142 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1227 (1994). Her most recent book, The Common Law Inside the Female Body (Cambridge University Press 2018), will be the subject of two forthcoming symposia: one in the Northwestern Law Review Online and one in the Boston College Law Review E. Supp.

Congratulations!

Share
Posted in Chutes and Ladders | Comments Off on @BernsteinAnita to Receive 2020 William L. Prosser Award

Deadline 9/20 Feminist Legal Theory Collaborative Research Network: CFP Law & Society 2020

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Bumping to the front in anticipation of the deadline this Friday, 9/20

Call for Papers – Friday, September 20 Deadline

The Feminist Legal Theory Collaborative Research Network

Seeks submissions for the

Law and Society Association Annual Meeting

May 28-31, 2020 in Denver, Colorado

Submission link: https://form.jotform.com/91827795835172

Dear friends and colleagues:

We invite you to submit a paper for a panel to be sponsored by the Feminist Legal Theory Collaborative Research Network at the 2020 Law and Society Annual Meeting in Denver. The Feminist Legal Theory CRN brings together law and society scholars across a range of fields who are interested in feminist legal theory. Information about the Law and Society meeting is available at https://www.lawandsociety.org/index.html

We will give preference to individual paper proposals over proposals for panels that are pre-formed.  One of the goals of the Feminist Legal Theory CRN is to encourage scholars to engage with the diverse work of others across the academy. Any proposals for a fully-formed panel should address specifically the efforts that the panel organizers have made to ensure diversity among presenters, including race, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity; diversity in the institutions of presenters’ affiliation and/or primary training; diversity among positions in the academy such as senior vs. junior scholars, tenured vs. non-tenured participants, doctrinal vs. non-doctrinal faculty. 

This year’s meeting invites us to explore “Rule and Resistance.”  We are especially interested in proposals that explore the application of feminist legal theory to this theme, broadly construed. We are also interested in papers that will permit us to collaborate with other CRNs, such as the Critical Research on Race and the Law CRN. We welcome multidisciplinary paper proposals and proposals from scholars from all parts of the world.

Our goal is to stimulate focused discussion of papers on which scholars are currently working rather than to seek fully-formed panels.  Thus, while you may submit papers that are closer to publication, we are particularly eager to receive proposals for works-in-progress that are at an earlier stage and will benefit from the discussion that the panels will provide. We strongly encourage applications from junior scholars and graduate students – as well as people who are new to feminist legal theory.

The Planning Committee will assign individual papers to panels of four presenters, based on subject matter. Each paper presentation should run roughly 10 to 15 minutes to allow ample time for discussion. We will also assign a chair, and one or two commentators/discussants for each panel, to provide feedback on the papers and promote discussion.

In addition to traditional panels, we are open to proposals in the other formats that the LSA allows, including Author Meets Reader, Salon, or Roundtable sessions. If you have an idea that you think would work well in one of these formats, please also use the submission form above.  Organizers of these types of sessions should address in their proposal the same diversity criteria listed above.

Finally–and new this year–the FLT CRN welcomes submissions for roundtables on how to incorporate feminist principles into both teaching methods (pedagogical strategies as well as classroom practices) and course coverage across subject areas. Sessions could potentially address topics such as: (1) what feminist teaching can look like and (2) how to deal with the unique challenges of teaching in a hostile or indifferent environment to feminism. Preference will be given to proposals that involve materials or demonstrations.

Please also note that LSA rules limit each participant to a single conference appearance as a paper panelist or as a roundtable participant. As a condition of participating as part of a program sponsored by the CRN, we also ask that you agree to serve as a chair and/or commentator/discussant for another panel or participant. We will of course take into account expertise and topic preferences to the degree possible.

Chairs are responsible for the primary organization of the panel. Chairs will develop a 100 to 250 word description for the session and submit the session proposal to LSA before the November 6 LSA deadline.  This will ensure that other participants accepted by the CRN can submit their proposal to LSA, using the panel number assigned by the CRN. The Chair may also serve as the Discussant for the panel, or there may be a separate Discussant.  Where possible, we will attempt to assign two Discussants to each paper panel. Discussants read the two to three papers assigned to them and prepare a short commentary to offer feedback and serve as a basis for discussion among the panelist and audience members as well as (to the extent relevant) identify ways that the papers relate to one another.

If you would like to present a paper as part of a CRN panel, please make your submission here https://form.jotform.com/91827795835172. The submission form will ask you to provide:

  • A 500 word abstract or summary of your paper;
  • Your paper’s title
  • Your name and institutional affiliation;
  • Number of years you have been in teaching/working as a grad student; and
  • A list of your areas of interest and expertise within feminist legal theory.

Please note that for Author Meets Reader, Salon, or Roundtable sessions, organizers should provide a 500-word summary of the topic and the contributions they expect the proposed participants to make.

If you need to contact the CRN Planning Committee, please do so via  feministlegaltheory@gmail.com. (Please do not send submissions to individual committee members.) 

Please submit all proposals by Friday, September 20, 2019. Late proposals may not be considered for inclusion. This schedule will permit us to organize panels and submit them prior to the LSA’s deadline of November 6. In the past, we have accommodated as many panelists as possible, but have been unable to accept all proposals. If we are unable to accept your proposal for the CRN, we will notify you by early November so that you can submit an independent proposal to LSA.

We hope you’ll join us in Denver to share and discuss the scholarship in which we are all engaged and connect with others doing work on feminist legal theory.

Finally, please make sure to sign up for the Feminist Legal Theory Collaborative Research page on TWEN, as that is our primary platform for communication about the CRN’s activities.  If your primary academic affiliation is outside a U.S.-based law school, please contact Bridget Crawford (bcrawford@law.pace.edu), and she will arrange for you to have access to TWEN, if you provide your institutional email account.  The CRN welcomes participants from all parts of the academy.

2020 LSA Feminist Legal Theory CRN Planning Committee

Naomi Cahn (co-chair)

Bridget Crawford (co-chair)

David Cohen

Tugce Ellialti

Jessica Feinberg

Jessica Knouse

Shruti Rana

Jordan Woods

Share
Posted in Call for Papers or Participation | Comments Off on Deadline 9/20 Feminist Legal Theory Collaborative Research Network: CFP Law & Society 2020

Why Do Many Female Faculty Members (Rightfully) Insist on Being Called “Professor”?

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

The answer is that many women, especially women of color, women with non-traditional bodies, women who are young, women who are middle0aged, women who are old, women who speak with an accent, and gender non-conforming folks, to name a few, don’t have the privilege of being presumed to be authoritative and competent.

From the Twitter feed of Dr. Sarah T. Romano (@STRomanoPhD) (Political Science and Global Studies, Lesley University), this syllabus message to students:

Course Policies and University Resources/Services:

What do I call my instructor?  Across your classes at Lesley University, the most respectful way to address your instructor in class, over email, or in other interactions is as “Professor _____” or “Dr. ____.”  This is because most of your instructors have earned their doctorates, or PhDs, in their fields.  Some faculty may have Masters (MA) degrees and are working on completing their PhDs.  If you are unsure if your instructor has a PhD, “Professor” is a safe bet!  If your instructor invites you to call them by their first name, then of course you may do so.

In law schools, many (most) professors do not have PhDs, so “Professor” is a super-safe bet. If the instructor is an adjunct, a student cannot go *wrong* calling the adjunct “Professor” (different schools do/do not permit adjuncts to use that title).  If the school’s adjuncts do not use the title, the adjunct can simply say, “Oh, it’s simply Mr./Ms. ____.”  Years ago, I remember when tax instructor Meade Emory, adjunct extraordinaire, said we were free to call him “Meade” after graduation. But until then, “Mr. Emory” would do.

My general thought is that when in doubt, one should always choose the more respectful title. But then again, I’m 50 years old and I still refer to some friends of my parents (and parents of childhood friends) as “Mr. ____” and “Mrs. ____.” So I’m old-fashioned like that.

As for my own (now college-aged) child, the general norm in our community was that teachers went by “Mr. ___” and “Ms. ____,” but friends’ parents were always on a first-name basis.  So the universe of people who will call me “Ms. Crawford” in the coming decades is probably limited to those people with whom I went to law school, but we weren’t close enough that we ever learned each others’ first names.  Or my first year law professors.

Professor Bruce Mann, I knew it was you on the phone from the way you said, “Ms. Crawford”!

Share
Posted in Academia, If you're a woman | Comments Off on Why Do Many Female Faculty Members (Rightfully) Insist on Being Called “Professor”?

Add Yourself to the Law Professor Twitter Census Before 9/9

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Here, if you’re a full-time law professor tweeting under your own name.  Details here.

Share
Posted in Call for Papers or Participation, Feminists in Academia | Comments Off on Add Yourself to the Law Professor Twitter Census Before 9/9

Updated Guide for Law Review Submission to Journals Specializing in Gender, Women & Sexuality

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

I’ve updated the law review submission guide to 29 U.S.-based law reviews and journals classified under the subject “Gender, Women and Sexuality” by the Washington & Lee Law Journal Rankings and the additional journals that contain the word “gender” in their title, but are not listed in the Washington & Lee Law Journal Rankings. 

They are:

  • Yale Journal of Law & Feminism
  • Harvard Journal of Law & Gender
  • Columbia Journal of Gender & Law
  • New York University Review of Law & Social Change
  • University of Pennsylvania Review of Law & Social Change
  • Michigan Journal of Gender & Law
  • Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy (closed after 2019-2020)
  • Duke Forum for Law & Social Change
  • Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice
  • Georgetown Journal of Gender & the Law
  • UCLA Women’s Law Journal
  • Texas Journal of Women, Gender and Law (closed)
  • Southern California Review of Law & Social Justice
  • Law & Inequality
  • Boston College J. of Law & Social Justice (closed)
  • Journal of Gender, Race & Justice
  • Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society
  • William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender & Social Justice
  • Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights and Social Justice
  • University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender & Class
  • Tulane Journal of Law & Sexuality
  • Hastings Women’s Law Journal
  • American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law
  • The Modern American
  • Women’s Rights Law Reporter
  • Idaho Critical Studies Journal
  • Feminist Criminology
  • Women Lawyers Journal
  • Journal of Law & Social Deviance

The guide is available for download here.

Share
Posted in Academia, Feminist Legal Scholarship | Comments Off on Updated Guide for Law Review Submission to Journals Specializing in Gender, Women & Sexuality

Updated Guide on Submissions to US Law Review Online Presences

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

I’ve updated my guide to submitting to online companions to include 50 schools’ law reviews.  The new guide is here on SSRN.  The chart with contains details on the mechanics of submitting essays, commentaries, reviews to the online presence of journals at 50+ schools.

For now, the document contains information about word count limitations, subject matter preferences, submission details and other guidelines authors may find relevant when considering sending their work to law review presences online.

Details vary widely from journal to journal. Not all journals accept unsolicited contributions.

Corrections, additions, refinements to this chart are very welcome. (If for any reason the link doesn’t work because the submission hasn’t been reviewed yet by SSRN, you can navigate to it via my SSRN page here.)

Share
Posted in Academia, Feminist Legal Scholarship, Law Schools | Comments Off on Updated Guide on Submissions to US Law Review Online Presences

Reflecting on Twenty-Five Years of Duke Journal of Gender & Law

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

In 1994, Professor Katharine Bartlett founded the Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy to solidify gender law as an intellectually disciplined and complex field of legal scholarship. Despite women’s ongoing struggle to achieve equal rights and treatment in nearly every aspect of the law and society––the workplace, the school, and the home, to name a few––gender law remained “shunned as a political activity inappropriate to institutions committed to academic rigor, objectivity, and neutrality.”

At the time of the Journal’s inaugural publication, gender law scholars and their work remained largely overlooked by other law reviews. But because of fierce advocates like Professor Bartlett and strong publications, including the Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, feminist scholarship thrived and earned long-overdue respect. Today, gender law remains both a disciplined, rigorous area of jurisprudence and a source of passionate discourse. Its wide applications, from sexual violence and harassment to family structure and children, continue to impact each person today, regardless of their sex. 

In the past 25 years, the Journal has published insightful scholarship on a breadth of gender issues, such as the paternalism of “informed consent” and abortion, the treatment of women soldiers in the military, and reexamining the First Amendment under Title IX and the equal opportunity to education. The Journal has also been privileged to print outstanding Articles, Essays, and student Notes that explore intersectional critiques on transracial adoptions, race and gender in criminal law, queer theory and feminism, the social realities of HIV law, and racial identity and gender performance. We are proud to be a law review that has pushed convention and remained committed to equality.

In my application to Duke Law, I wrote about how I wanted to become a part of the Journal, not only because it was one of the most cited publications in its subject area, but also because it earnestly championed issues that are important to oppressed groups. I wanted to become part of a tight-knit community of Duke Law students who also felt that gender, race, sexuality, and class would always matter because these make up the fabric of our identity. It is no surprise that these very issues compelled many staff members to go to law school in the first place.

The Journal will conclude in 2020 with its 25th anniversary issue. I have no doubt that with Professor Kathryn Webb Bradley as our faculty advisor and with my phenomenal editorial team, we will produce an excellent final publication.

Gender scholarship’s movement into mainstream law reviews shows that the issues the Journal has published are now becoming more accessible and recognized. This movement also shows that the issues we have had the opportunity to publish will continue to generate conversation, controversy, and action.  As a society and legal community, we still have a long way to go in the fight for equality. As the Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, we hope that we have laid the groundwork for even more meaningful change to come.

-Denise Go

Editor in Chief, Volume 27

Share
Posted in Feminist Legal Scholarship, Law Schools | Comments Off on Reflecting on Twenty-Five Years of Duke Journal of Gender & Law

Is that Maya Angelou’s Poem in a NYT Crossword Clue? Yes!

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

From the New York Times Crossword for Saturday, August 17, 2019:

28 Down Clue: Classic poem with the lines “Did you want to see me broken? /Bowed head and lowered eyes?

28 Down Answer: STILL I RISE

The text of the Maya Angelou’s full poem is here.

(And lest I get too excited that I caught this cultural reference, another in my household pointed out that I had absolutely nothing to offer in response to 59 Across in today’s puzzle: “Late Swedish electronic musician with the 2013 hit “Wake Me Up.” Answer after the fold for those stuck in the Wham! era, like me.) Continue reading

Share
Posted in Feminism and Culture | Comments Off on Is that Maya Angelou’s Poem in a NYT Crossword Clue? Yes!

Law Needs Feminism Because…Monash University Chapter

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

The fab feminists at Monash University Faculty of Law are hosting a #LawNeedsFeminism exhibition. The groups is releasing one photo a day via the group’s Facebook page here.

Monash is also the home of the Feminist Legal Studies Group, co-convened by Dr. Becky Batagnol and Dr. Janice Richardson. The group maintains a blog, Themis Says, and interested readers can sign up to receive email notifications of new posts.  Check it out!

 

Share
Posted in Feminism and Culture, Feminists in Academia, Sisters In Other Nations | Comments Off on Law Needs Feminism Because…Monash University Chapter

Be Counted in the 2019-2020 Law Prof Twitter Census

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

You can add yourself (or check that you are listed correctly) over here at the Faculty Lounge.

Law teachers from non-US jurisdictions seem especially underrepresented, so please let us know (if you want to) that you’re on Twitter!

Share
Posted in Academia, Law Teaching | Comments Off on Be Counted in the 2019-2020 Law Prof Twitter Census

Bringing Indigeneous Voices Into Judicial Decision-Making

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

This news from Sydney (Australia) Law School (here):

Dr Nicole Watson will use an Australian Research Council grant to incorporate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices into judgments and celebrate their contributions to the development of Australian law.

Dr Watson, who is also the Associate Dean (Indigenous), was awarded the University’s only Discovery Indigenous grant.

She will work with Professor Heather Douglas from the University of Queensland and Dr Asmi Wood from the Australian National University to write judgments so they are inclusive of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s voices and histories.

“I was inspired by the Feminist Judgments Project, which involved rewriting well-known cases from a feminist perspective,” she says.

“The project began in Canada and has also been undertaken in the UK and Australia. I was very lucky to be involved in the Australian project, rewriting a judgment from a criminal case from Central Australia in the 1930s.”

Bringing Indigenous Voices into Judicial Decision-Making will extend methodologies created by international and Australian scholars for correcting the absence of women’s voices. The project, which has received funding for three years, will focus on producing the missing Indigenous judgment in 20 decisions of Australian superior courts over the course of the 20th century.

“I hope that my University of Sydney colleagues and our students will also be involved in rewriting the judgments,”Dr Watson says. The other component of the project will explore the gulf between judge-made law and the lived experience of Indigenous litigants through an in-depth examination of four test cases from Queensland.

“In the 1980s and 1990s Indigenous people, particularly in Queensland, began using the law as a tool of resistance,” she says. “We plan to examine the histories that preceded four of the test cases. We will be interviewing litigants and their legal representatives to discover how they were able to mobilise resources for the cases, and what the lasting impacts of the litigation have been for their communities.” The project will … build a new relationship between Australian judges and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and be an original contribution to Australia’s jurisprudence on them and the law.

The University of Sydney’s full announcement is here.

Share
Posted in Courts and the Judiciary, Feminist Legal Scholarship, Race and Racism, Sisters In Other Nations | Comments Off on Bringing Indigeneous Voices Into Judicial Decision-Making

New Book Announcement: “The Princeton Fugitive Slave” by Lolita Buckner Inniss (@auntiefeminist @SMULawSchool)

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Professor Lolita Buckner Inniss (SMU) has published her book, The Princeton Fugitive Slave: The Trials of James Collins Johnson (Fordham U. Press 2019).  Here is the publisher’s description:

 

James Collins Johnson made his name by escaping slavery in Maryland and fleeing to Princeton, New Jersey, where he built a life in a bustling community of African Americans working at what is now Princeton University. After only four years, he was recognized by a student from Maryland, arrested, and subjected to a trial for extradition under the 1793 Fugitive Slave Act. On the eve of his rendition, after attempts to free Johnson by force had failed, a local aristocratic white woman purchased Johnson’s freedom, allowing him to avoid re-enslavement. The Princeton Fugitive Slave reconstructs James Collins Johnson’s life, from birth and enslaved life in Maryland to his daring escape, sensational trial for re-enslavement, and last-minute change of fortune, and through to the end of his life in Princeton, where he remained a figure of local fascination.

Stories of Johnson’s life in Princeton often describe him as a contented, jovial soul, beloved on campus and memorialized on his gravestone as “The Students Friend.” But these familiar accounts come from student writings and sentimental recollections in alumni reports—stories from elite, predominantly white, often southern sources whose relationships with Johnson were hopelessly distorted by differences in race and social standing. In interrogating these stories against archival records, newspaper accounts, courtroom narratives, photographs, and family histories, author Lolita Buckner Inniss builds a picture of Johnson on his own terms, piecing together the sparse evidence and disaggregating him from the other black vendors with whom he was sometimes confused.

By telling Johnson’s story and examining the relationship between antebellum Princeton’s black residents and the economic engine that supported their community, the book questions the distinction between employment and servitude that shrinks and threatens to disappear when an individual’s freedom is circumscribed by immobility, lack of opportunity, and contingency on local interpretations of a hotly contested body of law.

The Legal History blog covered the book here.

The book is available for pre-order now (I ordered mine!).  The official publication date will be September 3, 2019. Looking forward to reading this book!

 

Share
Posted in Academia, Feminist Legal History, Feminist Legal Scholarship, Race and Racism | Comments Off on New Book Announcement: “The Princeton Fugitive Slave” by Lolita Buckner Inniss (@auntiefeminist @SMULawSchool)

Talking About #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

In April, 2019, the Wisconsin Journal of Gender, Law & Society sponsored a symposium on “Race-Ing Justice, En-Gendering Power: Black Lives Matter and the Role of Intersectional Legal Analysis in the Twenty-First Century.” Instead of preparing individual papers for publication, the speakers at the symposium collaborated on a joint essay–written in a conversational style–that both captures and extends salient portions of the symposium discussion. The essay–written by Linda Greene (Wisconsin), Lolita Buckner Inniss (SMU), Mehrsa Baradaran (UC Irvine), Noa Ben-Asher (Pace), Bennett Capers (Brooklyn), Osamudia James (Miami), Keisha Lindsay (Wisconsin, Political Science & Gender and Women’s Studies) and me is now available on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

This essay explores the apparent differences and similarities between the Black Lives Matter and the #MeToo movements. In April 2019, the Wisconsin Journal of Gender, Law and Society hosted a symposium entitled “Race-Ing Justice, En-Gendering Power: Black Lives Matter and the Role of Intersectional Legal Analysis in the Twenty-First Century.” That program facilitated examination of the historical antecedents, cultural contexts, methods, and goals of these linked equality movements. Conversations continued among the symposium participants long after the end of the official program. In this essay, the symposium’s speakers memorialize their robust conversations and also dive more deeply into the phenomena, implications, and future of Black Lives Matter and #MeToo.

This essay organizes around internal and external spatial metaphors and makes five schematic moves. First, internal considerations ground comparisons of the definitions, goals, and ideas of success employed by or applied to Black Lives Matter and #MeToo. Second, external concerns inspire questions about whether both movements may be better understood through the lens of intersectionality, and relatedly, what challenges these movements pose for an intersectional analysis. Third, a meta-internal framework invites inquiry into how the movements shape the daily work of scholars, teachers, lawyers, and community activists. Fourth, a dialectical external-internal frame drives questions about the movements’ effects on law and popular culture, and the reciprocal effects between those external influences and the movements themselves. Returning to an external, even forward-looking, approach, we ask what the next steps are for both movements. This five-part taxonomy frames the inquiry into where the Black Lives Matter and #MeToo movements are located individually, but also where they are co-located, and, perhaps most importantly, where they are going.

The full essay is available here.

(cross-post from The Faculty Lounge)

Share
Posted in Activism, Feminism and Politics, Feminist Legal Scholarship, Race and Racism | Comments Off on Talking About #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo

Reimagining Canada’s Aboriginal Rights Jurisprudence

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

The (Canada) Indigenous Bar Association is working on a project inspired by the work of the Women’s Court of Canada.  Organizers Professor Larry Chartrand (Saskatchewan) and Professor Naiomi Metallic (Dalhousie) held an initial meeting at the Academics’ Workshop in November, 2018. Here is a partial description of the project, taken from a call for participation from 2018 (I just became aware of it today):

[T]his year’s Academics’ Workshop seeks to disrupt current thinking around Section 35 Aboriginal rights and reimagine how these cases could have been decided.  What if Calder, Sparrow, Van der Peet, etc. were written from the perspective of Nisga’a, Musqueam or Stolo law?  What if the Supreme Court actually questioned Crown sovereignty or the doctrine of discovery?  Or what if Aboriginal rights were read consistently with international human rights obligation, such as the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?  What if treaty obligations in Marshall were truly understood from a Mi’kmaq understanding of the Covenant Chain of Peace and Friendship Treaties?  Or, what if Ktunaxa had actually been informed by an intersectional approach to s. 2(a) and s. 35?

I look forward to following the success of this project!

Share
Posted in Feminist Legal Scholarship, Sisters In Other Nations | Comments Off on Reimagining Canada’s Aboriginal Rights Jurisprudence

New Canadian Feminist Judgments Project CFP

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Received just today from colleagues in Canada.  Please note deadline today.  Consider contacting organizer to request extension, if you are interested. -BJC Deadline extended to 9/30/2019

CANADIAN FEMINIST JUDGMENTS PROJECT
Call for Contributors
Offer of contributions due by August 15 2019

We are seeking scholars to contribute to a national feminist judgments project. Contributors need not identify with a particular kind of feminism, nor as female, but must have a working sense of what feminism means in relation to their work and be willing to commit to a research endeavour that will challenge them to think and write about the law in a different way.


This is a dynamic and innovative project in which scholars will write alternative judgments across a broad range of legal issues. These new judgments will operate as both a critique of common law method as well as a practical demonstration of how different ways of approaching a decision making task are possible. Judgments may be written either by individual authors or jointly by two or more authors. The cases need not be recent but must be important decisions that would benefit from a feminist analysis, or from an Indigenous feminisms perspective. The cases can be from any level, including decisions of tribunals.

We would also welcome contributions which take a more creative approach to rewriting Canadian decisions and reimagining decision making structures, including rewriting statutes, or imagining future legal decisions or structures.
Feminist judges will be free to choose the constraints on their decision making. One option, followed in many other FJPs, is to work with established legal method that existed at the time the decision was originally made, including customary legal perspectives, and simulated practical constraints on decision-making (such as the social-science research available at the time and the prevailing rules of precedent) to produce “authentic” judgments.

Writers who choose not to work in the idiom of “judicial decision” can explain their own approach and the boundaries they set.

Some contributions will require a “commentary”, designed to situate the contribution. For those working in the “alternative judgment” mode, the reader will need to know about the original judgment in its legal, social and political context, and they will need to know about the rules which bound the author of the rewriting.

This project is inspired by the groundbreaking work of the Women’s Court of Canada [WCC] rewriting Canadian equality jurisprudence. Since that project, expanded versions which branched out from equality law to all areas of law have been undertaken in other jurisdictions, including England, Australia , Northern/Ireland, Aotearoa New Zealand, Scotland, India, and the United States.

This uniquely Canadian project must be one in which the contributions of Indigenous scholars, and francophone scholars can be heard, one which includes the voices of BIPOC authors, and represents an array of sexualities – despite being situated within a profession and a part of the academy that continues to be inaccessible to many. Our unique legal landscape(s) and contemporary social, political and legal struggles are at the core of this feminist project.

Leading the initial stage of the project is Professor Estair Van Wagner (Osgoode). The CFJP will be supported in a variety of ways by the Institute for Feminist Legal Studies at Osgoode (Director Professor Sonia Lawrence), the Centre for Feminist Legal Studies at Allard Law (UBC) (Director Professor Debra Parkes), and Professor Angela Cameron, Shirley Greenberg Professor of Women and the Legal Profession at University of Ottawa Faculty of Law. Professor Van Wagner’s experience participating in the Feminist Judgments Project Aotearoa New Zealand inspired her interest in pushing for an expanded Canadian version. Preliminary phases have included making contact with people involved in most if not all of the other FJPs.

Outcome: One outcome of the project will be an edited collection of judgments, published as a book or special edition in 2022. Other likely or possible outcomes include dissemination events and a website. We are committed to an open access form of publication.

Offers to contribute: Please let us know if you would like to contribute in any of the following ways:

Judgment author/s: If you would like to write a judgment (5-7,000 words) please fill out the form at this link.

You will be asked to indicate the name of the case you propose to write on, and provide a brief explanation (max 150 words) of your interest in this case, and why the work would be feminist. We will ask you to identify the substantive subject area(s) of the work you will be doing, and whether you will need a commentator in order to set your work in context for a reader. If you do, please indicate if you have a commentator in mind.

If you would like to write something which is NOT a judgment, please fill out the same form and provide an explanation of what you would like to do.

These authors will form the core of the project and therefore are expected to be able to actively engage, including participating alongside other writers at in person and virtual events.

Conceptual or editorial contributors: If you would like to contribute to the development of the conceptual and theoretical aspects of the project, or would like to offer your assistance with peer reviewing or editing any of the work as part of an editorial collective, please indicate (max 150 words) the nature of the contribution you would be able to make.

Assistance: Once the scope of the project becomes clearer, we will be applying for funding for this project both to support participant meetings (virtual and in person) and for limited research assistance for contributors. If you have suggestions about funding opportunities that might be less known in the academic context, please feel free to provide these to Professor Van Wagner.

Contact:
Please send your offer to contribute using this form.
Questions can be sent to EVanWagner@osgoode.yorku.ca.

Proposed timetable:

15 August 2019:Deadline for offers of contributions *Deadline extended to 9/30/19*
1 October 2019: Project convenors advise on outcome of offers; project proposal drafted

School meetings

Winter 2020

TENTATIVE
May 2020: Judgment writing workshop, authors of judgments to attend.
Summer 2020: Regional and subject area group meetings
October 2020: Draft contributions due and circulated to other subject-area contributors

TENTATIVE
May 2021: Workshop 1 discussing draft judgments (held regionally?)
June 2021:Workshop 2 discussing draft judgments (held regionally?)
August 2021: Second drafts of judgments and all commentaries due
December 2021: Manuscript to publishers

TENTATIVE
Winter/Summer 2022: Dissemination Activities?

Share
Posted in Call for Papers or Participation, Feminist Legal Scholarship | Comments Off on New Canadian Feminist Judgments Project CFP