Free Candy with Your Tampons, in Texas of all Places!

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

from Blue Bag Grocery

In Denton, Texas, an indie grocery store owner is offering a free candy bar with the purchase tampons (but oddly, not pads).  The Dallas Morning News reports (here) that store owner Jacob Moses says, “I think the sales tax is unjustified….”It doesn’t change anything in legislature, but it’s an opportunity to show love to our female patrons.”

Several bipartisan bills have been filed in Texas seeking elimination of the sales tax on menstrual hygiene products, but none are expected to progress to a vote. (More info here.)

To be sure, the candy bar gimmick is good publicity for the Texas store. But it is also part of a larger movement of retailers that are highlighting the unfairness of the tampon tax. In the UK, supermarket chain Waitrose and Tesco are cutting prices and/or paying the tampon tax on behalf of their customers. (More info here.)

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

History of Forced Sterilizations in California: No Justice Yet

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Over at, writer Chris Kardish writes about how different states have approached forced sterilization and compensation for its victims:

image by Fred Dungan,

Forced sterilization by the government sounds like a ghastly practice that ought to be safely locked away in the distant past. But for some states, it’s an issue that’s very much in the present.

Take California. When the state formally apologized in 2003 for its history of forcing sterilization on prisoners and the mentally ill, most people thought the practice had died out. But this past June, a state auditor’s report found that 39 female inmates had received tubal ligations without lawful consent between 2005 and 2013.

California prison regulations already forbid forced tubal ligations, vasectomies and any other procedure that isn’t medically necessary. * * *

Involuntary sterilization gained traction in the U.S. in the early 1900s, along with the eugenics movement. Eventually 33 states had sterilization laws on the books before a wave of repeals beginning in the 1970s. It’s estimated that California sterilized 20,000 people from 1909 to 1963, accounting for about a third of all procedures performed in the U.S. Another state with one of the nation’s highest sterilization numbers was North Carolina, which in 2013 became the first to provide reparations. The state set aside $10 million for claims from its estimated 1,800 still-living sterilization victims.

Critics are wondering why California can’t do the same. “I think what North Carolina did by stepping up and making dollars available to compensate men and women who were sterilized — that’s a good model,” says Areva Martin, a California civil rights attorney. A 2013 Santa Clara Law Review paper estimated that some 500 people sterilized in California were still alive in 2012.

The full article is here.

Posted in Prisons and Prisoners, Reproductive Rights | Leave a comment

Class Actions for Refund of Sales Tax: From Tampons to Tea

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Those following the “tampon tax” cases seeking refunds for sales tax paid on menstrual hygiene products may be interested in this story of a suit brought against Walgreens for a refund of tax on non-sugary drinks:

A Schaumburg man is suing Walgreens for allegedly wrongly charging Cook County’s new sweetened beverage tax on unsweetened sparkling water.

The lawsuit, filed Friday by Vincent De Leon, comes days after the county’s penny-per-ounce tax took effect.

The tax went into effect Wednesday and applies to nonalcoholic beverages that are either sugar- or artificially sweetened, including fountain drinks as well as bottled and canned beverages.

LaCroix and similar flavored bubbly waters, such as Perrier and Soleil, aren’t supposed to be taxed because they’re not sweetened.

The full article from the Chicago Tribune is here.

Posted in Women and Economics | Leave a comment

Northern Kentucky University Hiring Announcement

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

From colleagues at NKU:

NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY, SALMON P. CHASE COLLEGE OF LAW, anticipates hiring up to two entry-level or junior lateral, tenure-track, J.D.-credentialed faculty members to begin in the 2018-2019 academic year.


We are seeking stellar candidates with great teaching and scholarly potential. We are open to candidates in all subject areas who will contribute to the scholarly excellence and intellectual diversity of Chase. Although we are not limited by subject, we seek to include in our candidate pool individuals who would add to our strength in the fields of Criminal Law, Elder Law, Evidence, Health Law, Intellectual Property, Property, Race and the Law, Torts, Trusts & Estates, and Uniform Commercial Code. Applicants capable of contributing to Chase’s commitment to producing practice-ready lawyers and enhancing the NKU Chase Law + Informatics Institute and/or the W. Bruce Lunsford Academy also are encouraged to apply. See

Northern Kentucky University is an Equal Opportunity/Equal Access/Affirmative Action institution. We embrace inclusiveness, equity, and global awareness in all dimensions of our work and seek excellence through diversity among our students, administrators, faculty, and staff. Application by members of diverse groups is highly encouraged.


Chase is located in Highland Heights, Kentucky, a few minutes outside of downtown Cincinnati, Ohio. The Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky metro area has a population exceeding 2.1 million. The region is an enjoyable place to live that is undergoing exciting urban revitalization and economic growth. The area includes a great variety of attractions, such as museums (art, historic, children’s and more), a plenitude of live music venues, professional football, baseball and soccer, riverfront parks, biking trails, a fantastic zoo, large aquarium, and many festivals. Educational options for children are diverse, and affordable housing options range from downtown lofts to renovated turn-of-the-century homes to quaint farm houses.


Please send a cover letter, C.V. and job talk paper to Professor Jack Harrison, Chair of Faculty Appointments Committee, at

Posted in Chutes and Ladders, Law Teaching | Leave a comment

Pitt Seeks to Hire Tax Prof

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

From colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh:

The University of Pittsburgh School of Law invites applications for a tenure-stream position, beginning in the 2018-2019 academic year, to teach courses in the tax area. The successful candidate will become an integral part of Pitt Law’s tax program, which includes a Tax Law Concentration, a Low-Income Taxpayer Clinic, and the peer-reviewed Pittsburgh Tax Review. We anticipate hiring for this position at the rank of assistant, associate, or full professor, depending on the candidate’s qualifications. We strongly encourage applications from lateral candidates at all levels. An interest in teaching and research in international aspects of tax law and/or in business/commercial law is desirable, as is an interest in and/or experience with incorporating experiential learning and innovative pedagogy (e.g., writing intensive, inter-professional, flipped classroom, etc.) into the classroom. The University of Pittsburgh is an Affirmative Action, equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, veteran status, disability, national origin, creed, marital status, age, gender identity or sexual orientation in its hiring. In furtherance of our strong institutional commitment to a diverse faculty, we particularly welcome applications from minorities, women, and others who would add diversity to our faculty. Contact: Harry Flechtner, Chair, Faculty Appointments Committee, University of Pittsburgh School of Law, 3900 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15260. Email: Email submissions are preferred. The deadline for applications is November 1, 2017.

Posted in Chutes and Ladders, Law Teaching | Leave a comment

Corbin on “Government Employee Religion”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Caroline Mala Corbin (Miami) has posted to SSRN her article, Government Employee Religion, Arizona St. L.J. (forthcoming).  Here is the abstract:

Picture a county clerk who refuses to issue a marriage license to an LGBT couple or a city bus driver who insists on wearing a hijab. The clerk is fired for failing to fulfill job responsibilities and the bus driver for violating official dress codes. Both claim that their termination violates the First Amendment speech and religion clauses.

There is a well-developed First Amendment government employee speech jurisprudence. Less developed is the doctrine and literature for First Amendment government employee religion. The existing Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence usually does not specifically account for the government employee context. This Article attempts to fill that gap by developing a government employee religion doctrine based on the existing government employee speech doctrine.

Part I summarizes government employee speech doctrine. Part II imagines a parallel government employee religion doctrine and applies it to the opening hypotheticals. It concludes that government employees who are religiously opposed to an aspect of their job would lose their religion claims for multiple reasons. In contrast, employees who wish to wear religious garb have much stronger claims. Part III addresses two concerns with my proposed government employee religion doctrine. One criticism is that government employee speech doctrine is too flawed to serve as a model. Another is that speech and religion are too dissimilar to base one on the other.

The full article is available here.

Posted in Feminism and Religion, Feminist Legal Scholarship | Leave a comment

Israeli Supreme Court Cites Feminist Law Profs in Opinion on Surrogacy

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

The Israel Supreme Court has cited three feminist law profs in an important decision (here — in Hebrew) regarding the constitutional right to enter into surrogacy agreements under Israeli law.  The scholars cited (in English) are:

Gaia Bernstein (Seton Hall), The Socio-Legal Acceptance of New Technologies: A Close Look at Artificial Insemination, 77 Wash. L. Rev. 1035 (2002);

Noa Ben-Asher (Pace), The Curing Law: On the Evolution of Baby – Making Markets, 30 Cardozo L. Rev.  1885 (2009);

Erez Aloni (UBC Allard), Cloning and the LGBTI Family: Cautious Optimism, 35 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 1 (2011).

Great to see these three scholars’ work recognized on the international level!

Posted in Feminism and Families, Feminist Legal Scholarship, Reproductive Rights, Sisters In Other Nations | Comments Off on Israeli Supreme Court Cites Feminist Law Profs in Opinion on Surrogacy

Call for Authors – Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Torts Opinions

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

DEADLINE: Friday August 25, 2017

The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project seeks contributors of judicial opinions rewritten to reflect a feminist perspective, and commentaries on the cases and rewritten opinions, for an edited book collection tentatively titled Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Torts Opinions.  This edited volume is part of a collaborative project 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.  Subsequent volumes in the series will focus on different areas of law and will be under review by Cambridge.

Torts volume editors Lucinda Finley and Martha Chamallas seek prospective authors for fourteen to sixteen torts opinions covering many major topics in tort law. The editors have selected the cases with an eye towards issues and injuries of particular salience to women’s lives, and with insights from feminist torts scholarship and input from leading torts scholars.  Potential authors are welcome to suggest other opinions that they would like to address, but the overall number of cases finally included in the volume must remain limited.

Interested prospective contributors should submit a proposal to either: 1) rewrite an opinion (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, or dissents. Authors of rewritten opinions should abide by the law and precedent and supplemental materials in effect and available at the time of the original decision.  Commentators should explain the original court decision and its context, how the feminist judgment differs from the original judgment, and what difference a feminist judgment might have made.  The volume editors conceive of feminism broadly and invite applications that seek to advance, complicate, or critique various feminist theories and advocacy.

Those who are interested in rewriting an opinion or providing commentary should apply no later than Friday August 25, 2017, by e-mailing the following information to Lucinda Finley,,  and Martha Chamallas, :

  1. Your CV, your areas of torts interest or expertise, and why you are interested in and well suited to participate in this project.
  2. Your top three preferences of cases to write about, and whether you have a preference to do a rewritten opinion or a commentary.
  3. Any time constraints and other obligations that may impact your ability to meet the submission deadlines.
  4. If you have another case that you feel strongly should be included instead of one of the selected cases and that you would like to write about, provide information about the case and the reasons you think it should be included.

Continue reading

Posted in Call for Papers or Participation | Comments Off on Call for Authors – Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Torts Opinions

England and Wales Family Court Decision: Example of a Feminist Judgment

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Earlier this week, Mr. Justice Peter Jackson of the English and Wales Family Division of the High Court handed down a relatively run-of-the-mill custody decision in what I think is an extraordinary format. The decision is written as a signed letter by the judge to the teenage boy whose custody was at issue.  Here is an excerpt:

13 July 2017

Dear Sam,

It was a pleasure to meet you on Monday and I hope your camp this week went well.

This case is about you and your future, so I am writing this letter as a way of giving my decision to you and to your parents.

When a case like this comes before the court, the judge has to apply the law as found in the Children Act 1989, and particularly in Section 1. You may have looked at this already, but if you Google it, you will see that when making my decision, your welfare is my paramount consideration – more important than anything else. If you look at s.1(3), there is also a list of factors I have to consider, to make sure that everything is taken into account.

When I was appointed as a judge, I took the oath that every judge takes to apply the law in a way that is fair to everybody. Some people will say that this or that decision isn’t fair, but that’s usually their way of saying that they don’t like the decision. People who like decisions don’t usually say they are unfair. * * *

Sam, the evidence shows that you are doing well in life at the moment. You have your school, your friends, your music, and two homes. You’ve lived in England all your life. All your friends and most of your family are here. I have to consider the effect of any change in the arrangements and any harm that might come from it. In any case where parents don’t agree about a move overseas, the parent wanting to move has at least to show that they have a realistic plan. That plan can then be compared with other plans to see which is best. That has not been possible here. You will remember that at the earlier hearing in May, I made very clear to your father that if he was going to seriously put forward a move to Scandinavia, he had to give the court proper information about where you would be living and going to school, where the money would be coming from, and what the arrangements would be for you to keep in touch with family and friends in England. At this hearing, no information at all has been given. Your father described the move to Scandinavia as an adventure and said that once the court had given the green light, he would arrange everything. That is not good enough. In over 30 years of doing family law cases, I have never come across a parent who thought it might be, and no court could possibly accept it. What it means is that I have no confidence at all that a move to Scandinavia would work. Your dad thinks he would find a good life and good work there, but I have seen nothing to back that up – he hasn’t made a single enquiry about houses, schools or jobs. You don’t speak the language and you haven’t been there since before you were 5. Even your dad hasn’t been there for over 10 years. I also doubt his ability to provide you with a secure home and a reasonable standard of living if you lived with him full-time. I would worry about how it would be for you if things started to go wrong. I think you would find it exciting at first, but when reality set in, you might become sad and isolated. I also don’t think it is good for you to be with your father 24/7. In some ways, he would expand your vision of the world, but in many more ways he would narrow it, because he holds such very strong views himself, and because I believe that (maybe sincerely and without realising it) he needs you to fall in with his way of thinking. I also think it would be very harmful to be living so far away from your mum, from young Edward (who needs you too), and from Paul.  * * *

So, coming to the orders I am going to make:

A. I dismiss your dad’s applications to take you to live in Scandinavia and for you to apply for citizenship there.

B. You will have a holiday of a week in the second half of August this year with your dad, to be spent at his home unless he and your mother agree that it is going to be spent somewhere else. * * *

Sam, I realise that this order is not the one that you said you wanted me to make, but I am confident that it is the right order for you in the long run. Whatever each of your parents might think about it, I hope they have the dignity not to impose their views on you, so that you can work things out for yourself. I know that as you get older, you will do this increasingly and I hope that you will come to see why I have made these decisions. I wish you every success with your future and if you want to reply to this letter, I know that your solicitor will make sure that your reply reaches me.

The full opinion, which is worth reading is here. The citation is A (Letter to a Young Person), Re (Rev 1) [2017] EWFC 48 (26 July 2017).

To my eye, this opinion has many of the hallmarks that Kathy Stanchi, Linda Berger and I identified (here) as characteristics of some feminist judgments including breaking rhetorical conventions, practical reasoning, and concern for power dynamics.

Mr. Justice Jackson’s decisions have attracted some attention before, as he was the first judge to use an emoji in an official ruling, so that his decision could be better understood by the children who would read it.

Mr. Justice Jackson has been recently elevated to the Court of Appeal.

Posted in Courts and the Judiciary, Feminism and Families, Feminism and Law | Comments Off on England and Wales Family Court Decision: Example of a Feminist Judgment

Guest Blogger Vasujith Ram on Taxes on Sanitary Napkins in India

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

The Constitution of India was recently amended to introduce the ‘Goods and Services Tax’ (GST). The GST subsumes almost all the existing indirect taxes in India (such as Excise Duty and Service Tax, levied and collected by the Federal Government, and Sales and Entry Tax, levied and collected by the State Government) and instead institutes a unified, single value added tax system for the entire nation. This was a landmark Constitution Amendment, since it eliminates the complete separation of powers and autonomy of the Union and the States in matters of taxation law. Now, indirect taxes are jointly administered by the Union and States, under the direction of the GST Council, a body comprising of Finance Ministers of the both the Centre and the States.

The new GST regime came into force on 1st July 2017. The GST Council decided to set seven different tax rates – Nil, 0.25, 3, 5, 12, 18, and 28 (in percent) – that will apply to the supply goods and services as per a schedule prepared by the Council. The Council decided to include sanitary napkins, sanitary pads and tampons in the 12% bracket. This led to protests, campaigns and petitions to reduce the rate of tax or exempt them entirely. The Council, despite representations, chose to stick to its original decision.

Repeated questioning led to the Union Finance Ministry issuing a note of justification. In its press release, the Finance Ministry justifies the 12% tax rate on two grounds. The first ground is that the pre-GST tax incidence was higher (about 13.68%). The second ground is based on the purported fact that raw materials used to produce sanitary napkins attract a tax rate of 18% or 12%. As a result, the Finance Ministry argues, domestic producers will have to face the financial and administrative costs associated with seeking refunds of tax credits earned in this “inverted” GST structure: whereas importers will face no such burdens (while paying the same 12% tax). This would worsen if the rate were to be reduced to 5%. If the rate were to be reduced to nil, then no input tax credits would be available at all (products taxed at ‘nil’ are treated as tax exempt, barring the possibility of claiming tax credits). The bottom line, as per the Finance Ministry, is that domestic producers would be put at a disadvantage compared to importers, if tax rates were to be reduced.

The economics of the justification can certainly be debated. The pre-GST tax incidence was lesser in states like Gujarat and Haryana, since they exempted sanitary napkins from taxes. Further, as one journalist argues, 80% of the raw materials used in the production of sanitary napkins is only taxed at 5%. Possible alternatives such as differential tax rates were not discussed (for instance, footwear costing under Rs. 500 is taxed at 5% and the rest at 18%). But beyond the argument that domestic producers must be prioritized, the press release fails to respond to constitutional concerns. Gautam Bhatia, for example, has argued that taxes on sanitary napkins constitutes sex discrimination under Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution. Bridget Crawford, in addition, has highlighted other rights, such as the right to health, work, dignity and education, that may be affected. However, the GST Council and the respective governments may soon have to answer, since the Delhi and Bombay High Courts have issued notices in cases filed challenging the 12% tax on sanitary napkins.

Vasujith Ram is a graduate of the National University of Juridical Sciences, Calcutta, and is presently enrolled in the LLM program at Harvard Law School

Posted in Sisters In Other Nations, Women and Economics, Women's Health | Comments Off on Guest Blogger Vasujith Ram on Taxes on Sanitary Napkins in India

White Paper on Title IX & the Preponderance of the Evidence, 4th Edition

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Please see the fourth edition of the White Paper on Title IX & the Preponderance of the Evidence at the link below, including the first 110 signatures from law professors across the country.  We will continue to accept signatures from law faculty members as long as law faculty members wish to sign on to the White Paper, and we will post updated editions of the White Paper as we receive additional signatures.  To add yourself as a signatory, please email your full name and the URL for your faculty webpage to Nancy Chi Cantalupo at

Title IX & Preponderance White Paper signed 7.18.17

Posted in Academia | Comments Off on White Paper on Title IX & the Preponderance of the Evidence, 4th Edition

New Book Announcements: Constitutions and Gender

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Constitutions and Gender, a new book edited by Helen Irving (University of Sydney) has been published by Edward Elgar Publishing. Here is the publisher’s description:

The idea that constitutions are gendered is not new, but its recognition is the product of a revolution in thinking that began in the last decades of the twentieth century. As a field, it is attracting scholarly attention and influencing practice around the world. This timely Handbook features contributions from leading pioneers and younger scholars, applying a gendered lens to constitution-making and design, constitutional practice and citizenship, and constitutional challenges to gender equality rights and values.

Offering a cutting-edge perspective on the constitutional text and record of multiple jurisdictions, from long-established to newly emerging democracies, Constitutions and Gender portrays a profound shift in our understanding of what constitutions stand for and what they do. Its central insight is that democratic constitutions must serve the needs and aspirations of all the people, and constitutional legitimacy requires opportunities for participation in both the fashioning and functioning of a country’s constitution.

This challenging assessment is of relevance to scholars and practitioners of law and politics, and gender and feminism, as well as practitioners and advisors involved in constitution-making.

More info about the book, including the table of contents and contributor listing, is available here.

Posted in Courts and the Judiciary, Feminism and Law, Feminist Legal Scholarship, Sisters In Other Nations | Comments Off on New Book Announcements: Constitutions and Gender

Goodmark on “Should Domestic Violence Be Decriminalized?”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Leigh Goodmark (Maryland) has posted to SSRN her article, Should Domestic Violence Be Decriminalized? 40 Harv. J. of L. & Gender 53 (2017).  Here is the abstract:

In 1984, the United States started down a path towards the criminalization of domestic violence that it has steadfastly continued to follow. The turn to the criminal legal system to address domestic violence coincided with the rise of mass incarceration in the United States. Levels of incarceration have increased by five times during the life of the anti-domestic violence movement. The United States incarcerates approximately 2.2 million people, with another 5 million under the scrutiny of parole and probation officers. While the criminalization of domestic violence did not have “a significant causal role” in the increase in mass incarceration in the United States, scholars have argued that the turn to criminal law to address domestic violence has contributed to the phenomenon of mass incarceration. Given the current focus on overcriminalization and decreasing mass incarceration, the time may be ripe to consider alternatives to criminalization of intimate partner violence. In her 2007 article, The Feminist War on Crime, law professor Aya Gruber wrote, “Although I am skeptical about the ability of criminal law to solve social inequality problems, there may be good reasons to keep domestic violence crimes solidly on the books.” Professors Cecelia Klingele, Michael Scott and Walter Dickey have called for the development of scholarship addressing “crime problems for which arrest, prosecution, and conviction are the most appropriate responses to crime, along with instances in which invocation of traditional response is particularly fruitless or counterproductive.” Both generally and specifically in the context of intimate partner violence, these articles ask about the continued utility of criminal interventions. This article takes up those questions and asks: should domestic violence be decriminalized?

The full paper is available here.

Posted in Acts of Violence, Feminism and Families, Feminist Legal Scholarship | Comments Off on Goodmark on “Should Domestic Violence Be Decriminalized?”

Meier on “Mapping Gender: Shedding Empirical Light on Family Courts’ Treatment of Cases Involving Abuse and Alienation”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Joan Meier (GW) has posted to SSRN her article, Mapping Gender: Shedding Empirical Light on Family Courts’ Treatment of Cases Involving Abuse and Alienation, 35 Law & Ineq. 311 (2017). Here is the abstract:

This article provides an empirical view of family courts’ treatment of custody cases involving abuse and/or alienation claims. After a brief literature survey, the article describes the co-authors’ pilot study, which begins empirically mapping family courts’ uses of parental alienation theory in abuse cases. The pilot results provide powerful preliminary empirical validation of the growing number of strong critiques of family court practice in abuse cases.

The full article is available here.

Posted in Courts and the Judiciary, Feminism and Families, Feminist Legal Scholarship | Comments Off on Meier on “Mapping Gender: Shedding Empirical Light on Family Courts’ Treatment of Cases Involving Abuse and Alienation”

Scotland’s Experiment with Free Tampons

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Good news out of Scotland, via the Huffington Post:

Scotland has made another great announcement for women’s health: the government will run a pilot program to provide low-income women with free menstrual products.

The initiative, announced Tuesday , will run for six months in seven low-income parts of Aberdeen, a coastal city in Scotland with a population of 212,000. The initiative will provide free sanitary products in schools in low-income areas, as well as in women’s and homeless shelters.

The full article is here.

Posted in Sisters In Other Nations, Women and Economics, Women's Health | Comments Off on Scotland’s Experiment with Free Tampons

Ohio State Hiring Announcement

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

From colleagues at Ohio State:

Clinical Faculty Position
The Ohio State University, Michael E. Moritz College of Law

Description: The Moritz College of Law invites applications for the position of Assistant Clinical Professor of Law in its Entrepreneurial Business Law Clinic (EBLC), to start in late 2017. The EBLC professor has primary responsibility for directing and teaching the Entrepreneurial Business Law Clinic, which provides third-year law students with the opportunity to learn lawyering skills by representing entrepreneurs and their start-up businesses. EBLC students typically work with clients on all phases of starting a business, including client intake, entity formation, legal business planning, and contract drafting (including employment and independent contractor contracts). When relevant for the client, students also learn how to protect the intellectual property of a business. The EBLC’s clinical professor will have several areas of responsibility, including 1) supervising law students who represent clients under the Ohio Supreme Court’s student practice rule 2) classroom teaching of lawyering skills, 3) engaging with the local and regional entrepreneurial community, and 4) participating in the life and governance of the College of Law.

We will consider all applicants; however, we prefer candidates with significant experience in representing entrepreneurs and early-stage companies. Candidates also should have an excellent academic record that demonstrates potential for clinical teaching and preparation of clinical educational materials. Candidates should be admitted to the Ohio Bar or eligible for admission in Ohio. The starting salary range will be $78,000 – $81,000 for a 12-month contract; full University fringe benefits are provided as well. The ideal starting date will be November 15, or as soon thereafter as possible. The successful candidate will begin teaching in January 2018.

Application Instructions: A resume, references, and cover letter should be submitted to Professor Paul Rose, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, 55 West 12th Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43210. Send e-mail applications to Applications will be reviewed immediately and will be accepted until the position is filled; preference will be given to applications received before September 1st.

The Ohio State University is committed to establishing a culturally and intellectually diverse environment, encouraging all members of our learning community to reach their full potential. The Ohio State University is an equal opportunity employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability status, or protected veteran status.

About Columbus: The Ohio State University campus is located in Columbus, the capital city of Ohio. Columbus is the center of a rapidly growing and diverse metropolitan area with a population of over 1.5 million. The area offers a wide range of very affordable housing, many cultural and recreational opportunities, excellent schools, and a strong economy based on government as well as service, transportation, and technology industries (see Columbus and its many suburbs have consistently been rated as one of the Top U.S. places for quality of life. Additional information about the Columbus area is available here.

Posted in Law Teaching | Comments Off on Ohio State Hiring Announcement

UNLV Hiring Announcement

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

From colleagues at UNLV:

UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS—WILLIAM S. BOYD SCHOOL OF LAW invites applications for tenure-track Associate Professors or tenured full Professors of Law. UNLV Law, one of the nation’s leading public law schools, is a community of engaged scholars, teachers, and recognized community leaders. As the only law school in Nevada, UNLV Law enjoys strong state support and sustained engagement with communities across the state, including the judiciary, federal, state, and local government, and the non-profit and business sectors. Working in one of the most diverse cities in the country, members of the faculty have unique opportunities to impact their communities.

Applicants for law school faculty positions should submit a letter of interest along with a detailed resume, at least three professional references, and cites or links to published works. With respect to our clinics and legal writing program, please note that UNLV Law has a unified tenure track; accordingly, professors who teach clinics or legal writing have all of the privileges and scholarly expectations that are associated with tenure. We anticipate hiring as many as two new faculty colleagues, although of course the number of available positions is contingent on funding. We invite applications from rising and accomplished scholars in all areas. Applications are considered on a rolling basis, and appointments would likely begin with the 2018-2019 academic year.

Contact: Please send application materials to the Appointments Committee Coordinator, Teri Greenman, Faculty Appointments Committee, UNLV—Boyd School of Law, 4505 South Maryland Parkway – Campus Box 451003, Las Vegas, NV 89154-1003 or by email to The Appointments Committee members are Francine Lipman (chair), Rachel Anderson, Ian Bartrum, Mary Beth Beazley, Lydia Nussbaum, and Jeff Stempel.

UNLV is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity educator and employer committed to excellence through diversity.

Posted in Law Teaching | Comments Off on UNLV Hiring Announcement

An interesting essay, not quite sure the question posed is answered

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

In case it’s missed on this holiday weekend (for those who feel like celebrating America), a piece in today’s Chronicle of Higher Ed, Can Feminist Scholarship Stop Sexism?, by Becca Rothfeld, a new Ph.D. candidate in philosophy at Harvard, is worthy of note.  It includes extensive analysis and critique of Living a Feminist Life (Duke University Press 2017) by Sara Ahmed, a lesbian scholar of color who resigned her professorship of race and cultural studies at Goldsmiths, University of London, in 2016, in protest of lax policies on sexual harassment.  It also focuses acerbically and rather delightfully on how to handle “men who publicly express admiration for Susan Sontag but make a private career of intimidating [academic] women” (a phenomenon also known to present in women, of course).  Does not actually answer the title question when it comes down to it — is the answer so self-evident, perhaps? — but no, it is an excellent question.  Deserves a read in any event.

ps:  And this is my nominee for a tribute to the Glorious Fourth:

Posted in Academia, Feminism and Culture, Feminism and the Workplace, Feminist Legal Scholarship, Feminists in Academia | Tagged | Comments Off on An interesting essay, not quite sure the question posed is answered

Call for Authors – Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Family Law Opinions

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook


The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project seeks contributors of rewritten judicial opinions and commentaries for an edited collection tentatively titled, Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Family Law Opinions.  This edited volume is part of a collaborative project 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.  Subsequent volumes in the series will focus on different areas of law and will be under review by Cambridge.

Volume editor Rachel Rebouché seeks prospective authors for twelve to fifteen rewritten family law opinions covering a range of topics.  With the assistance of an advisory panel of distinguished family law scholars, the editor has selected decisions that have not appeared in other Feminist Judgment volumes.  Potential authors are welcome to suggest other opinions, but given certain constraints, the list of cases will likely remain the same.  The list of selected cases, a description of the process of selecting decisions, and the opinions considered but not included, are on the application website here.

Proposals must be to either (1) rewrite an opinion (subject to a 10,000-word limit) or (2) comment on a rewritten opinion (4,000-word limit).  Rewritten decisions may be majority opinions, dissents, or concurrences.  Authors of rewritten opinions should abide by the law and precedent in effect at the time of the original decision. Commentators should explain the original court decision, how the feminist judgment differs from the original judgment, and what difference a feminist judgment might have made.  The volume editor conceives of feminism broadly and invites applications that seek to advance, complicate, or critique feminist ideas and advocacy.

Those who are interested in rewriting an opinion or providing commentary should complete the form found here.

Applications are due no later than Friday, July 21, 2017.  The editor will notify accepted authors and commentators by Monday, July 31, 2017. First drafts of rewritten opinions will be due on Friday, February 2, 2018.  First drafts of commentaries will be due on Friday, March 9, 2018.

If you have any questions, please contact Rachel Rebouché at


Posted in Call for Papers or Participation | Comments Off on Call for Authors – Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Family Law Opinions

Ben-Asher on “In the Shadow of a Myth: Bargaining for Same-Sex Divorce

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Noa-Ben Asher (Pace) has posted to SSRN her article “In the Shadow of a Myth: Bargaining for Same-Sex Divorce,” forthcoming in 78 Ohio St. L.J. (2017).  Here is the abstract:

This Article identifies and offers solutions to an emerging problem in family law: same-sex divorce. The Article’s central claim is that parties to the first wave of same-sex divorces are not effectively bargaining against the backdrop of legal dissolution rules that would govern in the absence of an agreement. In other words, to use Robert Mnookin and Lewis Kornhauser’s terminology, they are not “bargaining in the shadow of the law.” Instead, the Article argues, many same-sex couples today bargain in the shadow of a myth that same-sex couples are egalitarian—that there are no vulnerable parties or power differentials in same-sex divorce. The Article shows how the myth of egalitarianism undermines current bargaining for same-sex divorce. First, the myth leads to what the Article calls divorce exceptionalism, that is when a party claims that existing marriage dissolution rules do not apply in same-sex divorce because they were designed to remedy the non-egalitarian conditions of different-sex marriages. Divorce exceptionalism disables effective bargaining because without default legal rules there is nothing to guide the bargaining process. Second, the myth of egalitarianism eliminates key bargaining chips: under a presumption of formal equality neither party really has anything to “give” or “get” in the bargain for divorce. Finally, the myth, combined with the general fog of uncertainty regarding how courts will treat same-sex divorces, may lead to increased strategic behavior. The Article proposes a realistic solution, arguing that the legal actors who participate in same-sex divorce, including lawyers, mediators, courts, and the parties themselves, should reject divorce exceptionalism and apply ordinary divorce rules. It also proposes to protect vulnerable parties by extending to same-sex divorce the current trend towards joint-custody presumptions. The myth of egalitarianism in same-sex couples, which was quite helpful in achieving marriage-equality, is now haunting the first wave of same-sex divorces and harming vulnerable parties. It is time to let the myth go and address the reality of same-sex marriage and divorce.

The full article is available here.

This is a paradigm-challenging article. I recommend it.

Posted in Feminism and Families, Feminist Legal Scholarship, LGBT Rights | Comments Off on Ben-Asher on “In the Shadow of a Myth: Bargaining for Same-Sex Divorce

What We Know (and Don’t Know) About the Tax Code’s Impact on Small Businesses Owned by Women

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Caroline Bruckner, an Executive in Residence, Department of Accounting and Taxation at the Kogood School of Business (American University), has published a report entitled Billion Dollar Blind Spot: How the U.S. Tax Code’s Small Business Expenditures Impact Women Business Owners. It is available for download here.  This report contains a wealth of information that could inspire a career’s-worth of further research.

The major conclusions of the report include:

  • Most women business owners are small businesses operating in service industries and are legally organized as something other than a C Corporation.
  • Three of the four small business tax expenditures studied are so limited in design that they either explicitly exclude services firms, and by extension, most women-owned firms; or effectively bypass women-owned firms that are not incorporated or are service firms with few capital-intensive equipment investments.
  • When women-owned firms can take advantage of tax breaks, they do.
  • There is little or no tax research on how women business owners use the tax code.

The report further notes that the tax laws do not openly discriminate against women-owned businesses, but there is still a need for more research and data in this area.  Specifically, the report suggests:

  • The Congressional tax-writing committees should hold hearings to consider the impact of Code’s small business tax expenditures on women-owned small businesses.
  • The Congressional tax-writing committees should charge the JCT with preparing a formal estimate of the taxpayer cost and distribution by industry of the Code’s small business tax expenditures claimed by women business owners.
  • The federal Commission on Evidenced-Based Policy Making should develop assessments and strategies to inform Congress with evidence-based analysis on tax expenditures’ impact on women business owners and other groups.
  • The Administration should move quickly to nominate a nonpartisan Director of the Census Bureau, and Congress should prioritize considering this nomination in order to move forward with executing the 2017 Census survey of business ownership as well as the annual survey of entrepreneurs.

We need to know more about the impact of tax laws on women, racial minorities, immigrants, disabled individuals, LGBT taxpayers and other historically disadvantaged groups. This report is a welcome addition to the critical tax literature!

Posted in Feminism and Economics, Feminist Legal Scholarship, Women and Economics | Comments Off on What We Know (and Don’t Know) About the Tax Code’s Impact on Small Businesses Owned by Women

Introducing the Equality Law Scholars’ Forum & Call for Proposals

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

From the FLP mailbox, this announcement:

In the spirit of academic engagement and mentoring in the area of Equality Law, we (Tristin Green, University of San Francisco; Angela Onwuachi-Willig, UC Berkeley; and Leticia Saucedo, UC Davis) introduce the Equality Law Scholars’ Forum to be held this Fall.  This Scholars’ Forum seeks to provide junior scholars with commentary and critique and to provide scholars at all career stages the opportunity to engage with new scholarly currents and ideas.  We hope to bring together scholars with varied perspectives (e.g., critical race theory, class critical theory, feminist legal theory, law and economics, law and society) across fields (e.g., criminal system, education, employment, family, health, immigration, property, tax) and with work relevant to many diverse identities (e.g., age, class, disability, national origin, race, sex, sexuality) to build bridges and to generate new ideas in the area of Equality Law.

We will select three to four relatively junior scholars (untenured, newly tenured, or prospective professors) to present papers from proposals submitted in response to this Call for Proposals. In so doing, we will select papers that cover a broad range of topics within the area of Equality Law.  Leading senior scholars will provide commentary on each of the featured papers in an intimate and collegial setting.  The Equality Law Scholars’ Forum will pay transportation and accommodation expenses for participants and will host a dinner on Friday evening.

This year’s Forum will be held on November 17, 2017 at Berkeley Law School.

Junior scholars are invited to submit abstracts of proposed papers, 3-5 pages in length, by July 14, 2017.

Full drafts must be available for circulation to participants by October 27, 2017.

Proposals should be submitted to: Tristin Green, USF School of Law,  Electronic submissions via email are preferred.

Posted in Call for Papers or Participation | Comments Off on Introducing the Equality Law Scholars’ Forum & Call for Proposals

Is Ginsburg’s Decision in Sessions v. Morales-Santana Good for Women?

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

In Sessions v. Morales-Santana, a decision written by Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional today a federal law that makes it more difficult for U.S. citizen fathers than mothers to transmit citizenship to non-marital child born abroad.  Previously, unmarried U.S. citizen mothers could transmit citizenship to a child born outside the U.S. as long as she lived in the United States for one year before the birth of the child.  Unmarried U.S. citizen fathers were subject to a 5-year residence requirement.

In the opinion, Justice Ginsburg takes the reader through the history of equal protection cases (some of which she argued before the court) and finds no “exceedingly persuasive justification” for treating unmarried fathers differently from unmarried mothers.  But her solution? Eliminate the 1-year requirement for unmarried U.S. citizen mothers, and make them subject to the same 5-year requirement that unmarried U.S. citizen fathers are.  Ginsburg writes:

Going for­ward, Congress may address the issue and settle on a uniform prescription that neither favors nor disadvantages any person on the basis of gender. In the interim, as the Government suggests, §1401(a)(7)’s now-five-year requirement should apply, prospectively, to children born to unwed U. S.-citizen mothers.

The ACLU praises the decision in a press release here, as disruptive of the gender stereotype that women, and not men, are responsible for their children.

I’m less sanguine. I think the decision hurts unmarried women (and their children) in the name of making the unmarried women “equal” to unmarried men.

The practical impact of this case?  The petitioner, who has lived in this country since he was 13, and took his case all the way to the Supreme Court, gets deported. I’m sure it’s no consolation that his name (and case) will appear in Con Law casebooks.

Posted in Courts and the Judiciary, Feminism and Families, Immigration | Comments Off on Is Ginsburg’s Decision in Sessions v. Morales-Santana Good for Women?

New Book Announcement: “Gender Equality in Law” by Barbara Havelková

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Hart Publishing has just released Gender Equality in Law: Uncovering the Legacies of Czech State Socialism by Barbara Havelková, the Shaw Foundation Fellow in Law at the University of Oxford. Here is the publisher’s description of the book:

Gender equality law in Czechia, as in other parts of post-socialist Central and Eastern Europe, is facing serious challenges. When obliged to adopt, interpret and apply anti-discrimination law as a condition of membership of the EU, Czech legislators and judges have repeatedly expressed hostility and demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of key ideas underpinning it. This important new study explores this scepticism to gender equality law, examining it with reference to legal and socio-legal developments that started in the state-socialist past and that remain relevant today.

The book examines legal developments in gender-relevant areas, most importantly in equality and anti-discrimination law. But it goes further, shedding light on the underlying understandings of key concepts such as women, gender, equality, discrimination and rights. In so doing, it shows the fundamental intellectual and conceptual difficulties faced by gender equality law in Czechia. These include an essentialist understanding of differences between men and women, a notion that equality and anti-discrimination law is incompatible with freedom, and a perception that existing laws are objective and neutral, while any new gender-progressive regulation of social relations is an unacceptable interference with the ‘natural social order’. Timely and provocative, this book will be required reading for all scholars of equality and gender and the law.

More info is available here.

Posted in Feminist Legal Scholarship, Recommended Books | Comments Off on New Book Announcement: “Gender Equality in Law” by Barbara Havelková

Cassandra Steer on “Why Wonder Woman matters”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Over on IntLawGrrlsDr. Cassandra Steer of McGill University’s Faculty of Law and a Visiting Fellow with McGill’s Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism has posted this analysis inspired by international law and UN Security Council resolution 1325 of the film Wonder Woman and WW’s role “as a champion for peace, truth and equality at a time of conflict”:

Why Wonder Woman matters

Posted in Feminism and Law, The Underrepresentation of Women | Comments Off on Cassandra Steer on “Why Wonder Woman matters”

CFP – Legal Transitions and the Vulnerable Subject: Fostering Resilience through Law’s Dynamism

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

From colleagues at Emory:

There is a widespread perception that we live in a moment of change that is unprecedented in its scope and pace. Climate change, mass movements of dislocated persons, technological innovation, shifts in recognition of sexual and gender diversity, and new information networks challenge identities, institutions, and political coalitions. The law plays a critical role in creating and responding to change. A significant dimension of individuals’ and groups’ experience of change involves transformation in legal regulation. Relationships previously outside the law may gain recognition; the social insurance of risk may shift dramatically; entire legal status categories may disappear. As the law transforms, individuals and groups also transition across legal boundaries.

Vulnerability theory provides a framework for understanding how individuals and groups experience change, as they transition across legal categories. Vulnerability theory seeks to shift our understanding of law’s paradigmatic subject, from a static and autonomous one to a dynamic and socially embedded subject. The legal subject is not a universal adult but rather an evolving being who traverses across the life course from childhood to agedness, experiencing periods of heightened biological and derivative dependency along the way. Furthermore, both individuals and multiple social groupings are constantly susceptible to change in their ecological, economic, social, and political environments. Social institutions, including law, may form to promote human resilience—the capacity to adapt to change.

The purpose of this workshop will be to investigate how individuals’ and groups’ transitions between legal status categories expose vulnerability and also offer opportunities for fostering resilience. While legal scholarship often examines static legal categories, explaining how and why these categories privilege and advantage various individuals and groups, the movement of individuals and groups across legal categories itself deserves analysis. These transitions across legal categories—for example, from contracting strangers to corporate partners, non-married to married couples, employee to manager, insured to uninsured, incarcerated to released, or undocumented to documented—involve transformations in individual identity, relational dynamics, social networks, and institutional forms. The way in which law facilitates transitions itself will affect individuals’ and groups’ experience of legal change, as injurious or empowering, fair or unjust.

We invite papers that consider three main themes centered in the relationship between legal transition, vulnerability, and resilience.

First, papers might consider how the movement between legal status categories transforms both individual and group identities and relationships. How does the process of change, itself, variously expose vulnerability and generate resilience?

Second, papers may consider how legal categories and institutions change when law requires them to open their boundaries to individuals who do not conform to traditional norms. In this manner, the movement across legal status categories not only changes those in the process of transition but also fosters dynamism in institutions.

Third, papers might examine how transitions in individuals’ and groups’ legal statuses reveal challenges and opportunities for achieving the just distribution of social, economic, and other benefits and advantages. How should law allocate the costs and benefits generated by the movement across legal status categories?

We intend the workshop to cover a variety of topics ranging from corporate to family to healthcare to criminal law, among other arenas, and encourage the participation of scholars working in related historical, sociological, economic and other fields. Issues for discussion may include:

  • How does the transition between legal status categories affect people, families, communities, and entities across a range of socio-legal axes?
    • What differences in transitions between legal status categories inhere depending on who is transitioning—individuals, entire communities, or corporate entities?
    • How are these differences informed by what is being sought or avoided?
    • What happens to existing legal categories in processes of legal transition?
    • How do those who undergo legal transitions change the institutions and categories they inhabit?
    • What dynamism exists within legal frameworks as these legal transitions occur?
    • How does this dynamism, in turn, affect legal transition processes?
    • To what needs does the process of legal transition give rise, and how are these needs affected by socioeconomic factors?
    • How might we allocate responsibility for costs and burdens of legal transition?
    • How are status positions constructed and inhabited outside law and what opportunities and risks do these statuses entail?
    • How does the process of becoming a subject of law discipline social forms, and how do individuals and groups reorganize their social relationships as their legal statuses shift?
    • What impacts do the processes of legal transition on the relationships that people, communities, and entities have with one another, other social groups, and the state?
    • How do legal transition experiences differ depending on how transitions arise—whether they are seen as voluntary or coerced? Isolated, or numerous and repeated?
    • How we might understand the process of legal transition itself as a dynamic response to human and institutional vulnerability?How does the law respond to individuals and groups engaged in the process of transitioning between legal forms?
    • How does legal regulation of the legal transition process variously reproduce, entrench, or construct vulnerability and resilience?
    • What shared questions of theory and methodology can ground interdisciplinary approaches to legal transitions?
    • Are there alternative metaphors to legal transition that may better capture the questions of risk, protection, autonomy, dependency, and equality that arise from the movement across boundaries of legal forms?

Workshop Contacts:
Deborah Dinner,

Suzanne Kim,

Martha Albertson Fineman,

Submission Procedure:
Email a proposal of several paragraphs as a Word or PDF document by July 21, 2017 to Rachel Ezrol,

Decisions will be made by August 4, 2017 and working paper drafts will be due November 15, 2017 so they can be duplicated and distributed prior to the Workshop.

Workshop Details:
The Workshop begins Friday at 4PM in Gambrell 575 at Emory Law School. A dinner will follow the panel presentation session on Friday. Panel presentations continue on Saturday from 9:00 AM to 5PM; breakfast and lunch will be provided.

Posted in Call for Papers or Participation | Comments Off on CFP – Legal Transitions and the Vulnerable Subject: Fostering Resilience through Law’s Dynamism

Kalantry on the French Veil Ban: A Transnational Legal Feminist Approach

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Sital Kalantry, Cornell University Law School, is publishing The French Veil Ban: A Transnational Legal Feminist Approach in volume 46 of the University of Baltimore Law Review (2017). Here is the abstract.

After the gruesome terrorist attack that killed eighty-four people in Nice, many beach towns in France began to ban Muslim women from wearing the “burkini” on beaches. The burkini, which was created by an Australian designer, is modest swimwear that covers the body and hair. The Nice attack occurred on the heels of a series of attacks in France. The timing of the French burkini ban suggests it was targeting Muslims due to the anger over the attacks. The argument that burkinis are not hygienic is a fig leaf for other more pernicious justifications. Others argue that religious garb generally contravenes the French vision of secularism. Another line of attack against the burkini relates to gender equality. For example, the French Prime Minister argues that the burkini reinforces the “enslavement of women.” In this article, I will focus on arguments that justify bans on Muslim women’s religious clothing on the basis that they are oppressive to women.

The full text is not available from download from SSRN.

Posted in Feminism and Religion, Sisters In Other Nations | Comments Off on Kalantry on the French Veil Ban: A Transnational Legal Feminist Approach

Gender Inequality Continues: Japanese Princess Will Lose Her Status When She Marries Commoner

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Japan’s Princess Mako will lose her status as royalty when she marries her fiance, Kei Komuro. Her aunt also lost her royal status when she married a non-royal twelve years ago. More here from the BBC.  More recently, another princess gave up her status when she married another non-royal. Note that the Crown Prince married a non-royal, but kept both his royal status and his position in line for the throne.

The Japanese nation has been discussing whether women should have the right to succeed to the Chysanthemum Throne for some years. In 2005 a government panel issued a report that recommended that females be allowed to succeed but those recommendations have not yet been adopted. Some experts say royal women should keep their rights, even if that might lead to claimants to the throne through female descent. 

Posted in Sisters In Other Nations | Comments Off on Gender Inequality Continues: Japanese Princess Will Lose Her Status When She Marries Commoner

Monash Feminists Now Online

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

From Australian colleagues at Monash:

We’re very excited to announce that the Feminist Legal Studies Group at Monash University in Australia now has a webpage. Our blog on that page is coming soon. You can follow us on Twitter at @feminist_law.

We have started producing feminist podcasts, called the Scarlet Letter, led by Dr Azadeh Dastyari and Dr Ronli Sifris. The first 3 episodes are now available on Soundcloud and will be available on ITunes and our website shortly. The RSS feed is here. You can follow the Scarlet Letter on Twitter at @Feminist_pod. First 3 episodes are up already, with three Monash feminist legal scholars discussing their personal and professional approaches to feminism.

We have plans to host a feminist legislation/treaty project (like the feminist judgments projects, only all parliamentary) in 2018-19. We’ll post the call for papers here soon.

Posted in Feminists in Academia, Sisters In Other Nations | Comments Off on Monash Feminists Now Online

Where are the Women? Not in this Issue of “The Tax Lawyer”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

According to its website, “The Tax Lawyer and The State and Local Tax Lawyer are published by the Section of Taxation of the American Bar Association with the assistance of the Georgetown University Law Center and its students.”

Check out the contents of  Vol. 70, No. 2 (Winter 2017) of The Tax Lawyer:

H/T Paul Caron.

Notice anything missing? Yoo-hooo, ABA! How are you doing on those gender equality initiatives?

Posted in Legal Profession, Where are the Women? | Comments Off on Where are the Women? Not in this Issue of “The Tax Lawyer”

CFP: ClassCrits at Ten: Mobilizing for Resistance, Solidarity, and Justice, Nov. 10 & 11, 2017, at Tulane University School of Law

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

From the FLP mailbox, this CFP:

Call for Participation:  ClassCrits at Ten: Mobilizing for Resistance, Solidarity, and Justice, Nov. 10 & 11, 2017, at Tulane University School of Law, New Orleans, Louisiana, hosted by Prof. Saru Matambanadzo.

The event will feature a keynote address by renowned social justice lawyer and scholar, Prof. William P. Quigley, Director of the Gillis Long Poverty Law Center at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law.

Proposals (brief abstracts) are due by email to by June 1, 2017.  For more details, see

ClassCrits formed ten years ago to engage scholars, students and advocates in critical analysis of economic inequality and the law. During this time of possibility and struggle, we invite participants to submit applications to present at the 10th Annual ClassCrits conference, held at Tulane University Law School.  We invite panel proposals, roundtable discussion proposals, paper presentations, poetry and fiction reading, and art that speak to this year’s theme, as well as to general ClassCrits themes.  We are also interested in receiving proposals from law clinicians who engage in activist lawyering as a core part of their curriculum design. Finally, we extend a special invitation to junior scholars (i.e., graduate students and non-tenured faculty members) to submit proposals for works in progress. At least one senior scholar, as well as other ClassCrits scholars, will provide feedback and detailed commentary upon each work in progress in a small, supportive working session at this year’s workshop.

Posted in Call for Papers or Participation | Comments Off on CFP: ClassCrits at Ten: Mobilizing for Resistance, Solidarity, and Justice, Nov. 10 & 11, 2017, at Tulane University School of Law

Law Student Scholarship Opportunity: The M. Katherine Baird Darmer Equality Scholarship

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

The M. Katherine Baird Darmer Equality Scholarship Fund was named in memory of the late M. Katherine Baird Darmer, an activist, law professor, and champion of change for the LGBT community in Orange County and beyond. The Fund, which is sponsored by the Orange County Lavender Bar Association (OCLBA) and the Orange County Equality Coalition (OCEC), will award one or more scholarships each year to academically qualified law students who have demonstrated commitment to advancing equality for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community in Orange County. Determinations regarding the amount and number of awards are at the sole discretion of the scholarship committee jointly appointed by OCLBA and OCEC and the Liberty Hill Foundation.


To be considered for the Darmer Equality Scholarship, an applicant must meet all of the following criteria:

  • Be a current or incoming law student.
  • Demonstrate commitment to advancing equality for the LGBT community in Orange County.
  •  Make every effort to be available for a personal interview should one be required.

More information and applications are available here.  Deadline is 5:00 p.m. on May 15, 2017.

H/T Francine Lipman

Posted in Fellowships and Funding Opportunities, Law Schools, LGBT Rights | Comments Off on Law Student Scholarship Opportunity: The M. Katherine Baird Darmer Equality Scholarship

Sabbatical Visitorships at Columbia Law School’s Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

The Center for Gender & Sexuality Law at Columbia Law School invites applications for sabbatical visitors for the 2017-2018 academic year to undertake research, writing and collaboration with Center faculty and students in ways that span traditional academic disciplines. The CGSL welcomes applications from faculty from any field who are interested in spending a semester or the academic year in residence at Columbia Law School working on scholarly projects relating to Gender and/or Sexuality Law.

Sabbatical Visitors will receive an office with phone and computer, secretarial support and full access to university libraries, computer systems and recreational facilities. In addition, Sabbatical Visitors will be expected to participate in CGSL activities and present a paper at the Center’s Colloquium Series.  Application deadline is May 15, 2017.

For more information:

Katherine Franke, Columbia Law School

Posted in Academia | Comments Off on Sabbatical Visitorships at Columbia Law School’s Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

Leary on Affirmatively Replacing Rape Culture With Consent Culture

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Mary Leary, CUA Columbus School of Law, has published Affirmatively Replacing Rape Culture with Consent Culture at 49 Texas Tech 1 (2016). Here is the abstract.

The debate concerning affirmative consent consists of two camps: those who assert people must affirmatively establish a desire to engage in sexual contact and those who believe this is an unattainable standard. However, this is not where the debate should start and end. This paper argues that the movement towards affirmative consent in sexual contact will reduce the occurrence of sexual assault. Criminal law sets the backdrop for this paper, but the author recognizes the limits of criminal law. In order to combat sexual assault, there must be a multidisciplinary response. By providing a comprehensive definition of affirmative consent and examining the social harm of sexual assault that the criminal law seeks to rectify, the author will establish that the creation of an affirmative consent culture, rather than simply an affirmative consent law, will enhance protections for women. Affirmative consent means more than “yes means yes.” This paper responds to the many critiques of the affirmative consent model including that it will not eliminate sexual assault, that this standard criminalizes sex, and that it shifts the burden to a defendant. Rather, the author proposes a three pronged approach to affirmative consent which mirrors that of the anti-drunk driving methodology of the 20th Century: education, social stigma, and criminal law adjustments.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Posted in Coerced Sex, Sex and Sexuality | Comments Off on Leary on Affirmatively Replacing Rape Culture With Consent Culture

RBG on Women’s Role in Exodus Narrative

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

In 2015, for the American Jewish World Service’s Chag v’Chesed (“Celebration and Compassion”) series, Justice Ginsburg published a Passover story that highlights the role of women in the Exodus.  Here’s an excerpt:

These women had a vision leading out of the darkness shrouding their world. They were women of action, prepared to defy authority to make their vision a reality bathed in the light of the day.

Retelling the heroic stories of Yocheved, Shifra, Puah, Miriam and Batya reminds our daughters that with vision and the courage to act, they can carry forward the tradition those intrepid women launched.

While there is much light in today’s world, there remains in our universe disheartening darkness, inhumanity spawned by ignorance and hate. We see horrific examples in the Middle East, parts of Africa, and Ukraine. The Passover story recalls to all of us—women and men—that with vision and action we can join hands with others of like mind, kindling lights along paths leading out of the terrifying darkness.

The full text is here.

Chag Pesach kasher vesame’ach to all celebrating!

Posted in Feminism and Religion | Comments Off on RBG on Women’s Role in Exodus Narrative

#Blackwomenatwork: Personal is Political

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

As I shared with one of my classes the other night, over my years in academia, on a fairly regular basis, white students have said to me, “I am afraid of black people,” or even,”I don’t like black people.”

When this happens, I usually start by gently but firmly reminding such students that I am actually a black person, and that their comments offend me. I think that my familiarity with many of the cultural touchstones that are parts of their lives causes them to forget a little bit. Or rather, I’m not sure if they forget that I am black, it’s just that they think that I am a “safe” black person to whom to say these things.  Or they think that as a professor, I must be there for them, a neutral, unfeeling service provider whose job is to be stern, caring, instructive, sin-absolving, and healing all at once. The casting directions for my job call for a combination of a butt-spanking black mammy, an avuncular, scholarly parish priest, and a disease-eating magic Negro à la Michael Clarke Duncan in The Green Mile.

These “I am afraid of black people” students are not wrong in some respects about who I am to them. While I certainly do have feelings and am subject to the hurts of racial insults like anyone else, to be successful (aka to remain in and survive the job) in my line of work has often meant tempering those hurt feelings. Indeed, I frequently take on a “post-racial” pose with such students just to draw out their anti-black feelings. It’s not a trap. I do it because I sincerely want to help.

While I am neither therapist nor racial healer by any means, I think that the world is improved if people confront what are often irrational prejudices. If I don’t know that students bear such feelings, I can’t begin to talk it through with them. I am actually encouraged that white students even engage in these conversations with me. What  I find sad about such conversations is that I sometimes learn in the course of them that I am one of the few (or only) black people with whom they have ever had an ongoing relationship–academic, professional, social or otherwise.

My gender becomes a salient factor here because while some of these students have known or interacted with black male athletes during high school or college (“Yay, team!”), they have had almost no corresponding need or desire to interact with black girls or women. It is this raced and gendered interaction gap that causes situations like the recent  public verbal assaults on journalist April Ryan, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and former national security adviser Susan Rice. The very public sallies against these women are no doubt politically inspired. But just as the personal is political, the personal and the political are at all times both raced and gendered.  The hashtag #Blackwomenatwork is an important mechanism for focusing attention on the race-gender lacuna that often leaves black women in a space apart.

(cross-post from Ain’t I a Feminist Legal Scholar, Too?)

Posted in Law Teaching, Race and Racism | Comments Off on #Blackwomenatwork: Personal is Political

Neil Gorsuch, Hobby Lobby, and the Question of Complicity

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Neil Gorsuch may be a soft-spoken and gentlemanly Harvard-educated lawyer’s lawyer.  But his decision in the Hobby Lobby case, 723 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2013), apparently overlooked by most commentators, demonstrates just how much American women have to fear if he is confirmed as a justice on the Supreme Court.

As we know, in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014), the Supreme Court determined by a 5-4 majority that for-profit family owned corporations were “persons” who could assert the religious beliefs of their human shareholders to thwart the mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that all employer-based and individual insurance plans covered under the ACA offer essential preventative services.

Hobby Lobby began when two family-owned for-profit corporations, Hobby Lobby and Mardel, sought a preliminary injunction in an Oklahoma federal district court, contending that they should not be compelled to comply with the ACA’s contraceptive services mandate because the Green family, the owners of these corporations, personally believed that certain of these FDA-approved forms of contraception constituted abortion, in violation of their religious belief that life begins at conception. The district court denied the injunction, and the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeal for the Tenth Circuit. A plurality of the court held that Hobby Lobby and Mardel, as corporations, were entitled to a preliminary injunction precluding the enforcement of the ACA, ruling that these corporations’ “religious beliefs” trumped the government’s interest in providing preventative health care to millions of Americans under the ACA.

Judge Gorsuch concurred.  After expressing his agreement with the plurality opinion, he then framed the issue of the obligation to comply with the ACA mandate in moral and religious terms: “All of us face the problem of complicity. All of us must answer for ourselves whether and to what degree we are willing to be involved in the wrongdoing of others.” 723 F.3d at 1152 (Gorsuch, J., concurring). Here, the “wrongdoing” Judge Gorsuch was referring to was women’s use of certain forms of contraception that the Greens found to be the equivalent of an abortion.

In essence, Judge Gorsuch found that as long as the Greens’ religious beliefs were sincerely held, their religiously based objections to particular forms of contraception trumped any competing interest the government had in mandating essential health services for people who received their health coverage under the Affordable Care Act.  Indeed, he declared that the Religious Freedom Restoration was “something of a ‘super-statute,’” which must prevail over other legislatively enacted government policies. 723 F.3d at 1157. Judge Gorsuch reasoned that because individual Green family members hold the sincere belief that certain forms of contraception destroy a fertilized egg and that they view this practice as “gravely wrong,” they are faced with a “’Hobson’s choice,’” either to violate their personal religious beliefs by deciding as corporate officers of Hobby Lobby to buy insurance coverage that includes all ACA-mandated contraceptive services or to refuse to afford their employees the mandated insurance coverage.  The Greens contended that they would face a penalty as high as a half a billion dollars annually for failing to comply with the ACA’s employer mandate.

Nowhere in Judge Gorsuch’s opinion is there any discussion of the 13,000 employees of Hobby Lobby, who may not share the religious beliefs of their employer.  If these employees are not offered the insurance coverage mandated by the ACA, they may be unable to exercise their fundamental right to self-determination and informed consent because they cannot afford the contraceptive method that they believe will best protect their interest in economic security, including the ability to engage in family planning that the wealthier Green family surely was able to choose if it wished.

The logical extension of Judge Gorsuch’s reasoning in Hobby Lobby could enshrine in the law any number of conservative religious positions, including the view that life begins at conception or that homosexual activity is prohibited, or that God commands racial separation. If he is confirmed, the Supreme Court is likely to issue many more decisions that undermine the liberty and privacy of ordinary Americans.

-Linda Fentiman

Posted in Courts and the Judiciary, Feminism and Religion, Reproductive Rights | 1 Comment

Joshi on “Measuring Diversity”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Yuvraj Joshi, a Fellow at Lambda Legal, has published an essay “Measuring Diversity” in the Columbia Law Review Online. Here is the abstract:

In Fisher v. University of Texas in June 2016, the Supreme Court upheld the use of race-conscious affirmative action in college admissions. While recognizing a university’s interest in the educational benefits that derive from a diverse student body, Justice Kennedy cautioned in the majority opinion: “A university’s goals cannot be elusory or amorphous — they must be sufficiently measurable to permit judicial scrutiny of the policies adopted to reach them.”

Justice Kennedy’s measurability requirement is the single most important feature of his opinion. The constitutionality of race-conscious admissions going forward will depend on how universities measure diversity. No wonder critics of affirmative action are clamoring for disclosure of ever more data. The dilemma facing the nation’s universities is how to measure diversity while knowing that opponents of race-conscious admissions will utilize those metrics in litigation to challenge affirmative action programs.

In seeking to address this dilemma, university administrators reading Fisher may believe that they are required to measure diversity in more precise and even numerical terms. However, this Piece cautions against following that misguided impulse in the context of race-conscious admissions based on three primary observations. First, diversity-based affirmative action programs have survived past constitutional challenges in part because they are imprecise as to which individuals benefit from them and how much benefit those individuals receive. Second, this lack of precision may minimize some of the social divisiveness associated with race-conscious admissions policies, which may help diffuse political opposition to affirmative action and diminish the constitutional harms perceived by some Justices and potential litigants. Finally, Fisher does not actually require universities to measure diversity in more precise or numerical terms than previous affirmative action decisions. Given the current political climate, universities’ ability to maintain affirmative action programs under Fisher will depend on their ability to grasp and apply these principles.

To demonstrate the merits of imprecision in measuring diversity, this Piece proceeds in three parts. Part I surveys some key cases on affirmative action to show how and why the Court has been concerned with numerical considerations of race in college admissions. Part II examines two uses of numbers that have received scrutiny in cases leading up to Fisher: (1) the gathering of data on minority enrollment and student body diversity and (2) the use of metrics to describe diversity goals, especially the concept of “critical mass.” Part III studies scrutiny of the University of Texas’s admissions program in Fisher and teases out lessons for how universities should structure their admissions programs in light of Fisher. The Piece concludes that a degree of imprecision remains a requirement of constitutionally permissible affirmative action after Fisher, and universities interested in enrolling a diverse student body should therefore measure diversity using educational values rather than numerical metrics.

The full essay is available here.

Posted in Academia, Race and Racism | Comments Off on Joshi on “Measuring Diversity”

Welcome to the Blogroll, Monash Colleagues!

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Today we welcome to the blogroll ten fabulous feminist colleagues from Monash University, Faculty of Law (located in Melbourne, Australia):

So glad to have you join us!

Posted in Blog Administration | Comments Off on Welcome to the Blogroll, Monash Colleagues!

Announcing Publication of “Northern/Irish Feminist Judgments”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Northern/Irish Feminist Judgments: Judges’ Troubles and the Gendered Politics of Identity has been published by Hart Publishing.  The volume is edited by Máiréad Enright, Julie McCandless and Aoife O’Donoghue.  Here is the publisher’s description of the book:

The Northern/Irish Feminist Judgments Project inaugurates a fresh dialogue on gender, legal judgment, judicial power and national identity in Ireland and Northern Ireland. Through a process of judicial re-imagining, the project takes account of the peculiarly Northern/Irish concerns in shaping gender through judicial practice. This collection, following on from feminist judgments projects in Canada, England and Australia takes the feminist judging methodology in challenging new directions. This book collects 26 rewritten judgments, covering a range of substantive areas. As well as opinions from appellate courts, the book includes fi rst instance decisions and a fi ctional review of a Tribunal of Inquiry. Each feminist judgment is accompanied by a commentary putting the case in its social context and explaining the original decision. The book also includes introductory chapters examining the project methodology, constructions of national identity, theoretical and conceptual issues pertaining to feminist judging, and the legal context of both jurisdictions. The book, shines a light on past and future possibilities – and limitations – for judgment on the island of Ireland.

To learn more about the Northern/Irish Feminist Judgments, see the project’s website here.

This is the fourth feminist judgments project to appear in print. Others include the U.K.-based Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice (Hart 2010), Australian Feminist Judgments: Righting and Rewriting the Law (Hart 2015), and Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court (Cambridge 2016). Feminist Judgments of Aotearoa New Zealand: Te Rino: a Two-stranded Rope will be published in December, 2017, with others to follow.

Posted in Recommended Books, Sisters In Other Nations | Comments Off on Announcing Publication of “Northern/Irish Feminist Judgments”

On International Women’s Day, Advocacy Groups Launch “Full Citizenship Project for Law Faculty”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

From national colleagues at the Legal Writing Institute and Association of Legal Writing Directors, this press release:

Professional associations unite to support full institutional citizenshipan effort to correct gender and related disparities among law faculty

The Legal Writing Institute (LWI) and the Association of Legal Writing Directors (ALWD) announce the launch of a new initiative aimed at correcting gender and related disparities among U.S. law faculty.  Organizers chose International Women’s Day (March 8) to launch the “Full Citizenship Project for All Law Faculty” because of the professional status challenges that continue to plague skills-based and academic support law faculty, who are predominantly women.

As law faculty status and salaries decrease, the percentage of women faculty increases. Based on available data, roughly—and only—36 percent of tenured or tenure track faculty are female, whereas 63 percent of clinical faculty and 70 percent of legal writing faculty are female. This disparity is due to faculty teaching in skills-based areas often being denied the opportunity to earn the same security of position and academic freedom that traditional law faculty enjoy. Yet security of position and academic freedom are needed for a robust classroom and innovative teaching in all areas of law.

The Full Citizenship Project kicks off the start of a campaign to raise awareness about the challenges facing many of the many women and men who teach in skills-based positions. “The goal of this project is to gain support among all law school administrators and faculty for our view that no justification exists for subordinating one group of law faculty to another based on the nature of the course, the subject matter, or the teaching method,” said Kim D. Chanbonpin, President of the Legal Writing Institute. “We believe these rights are now necessary more than ever before to ensure that law students and the legal profession benefit from the myriad perspectives and expertise that all faculty bring to the mission of legal education.”

The first step of this project involves gathering signatures from across the country endorsing the Full Citizenship Statement, which has already been adopted by these organizations and by the Society of American Law Teachers Board of Governors. A copy of the Full Citizenship Statement is available here.

We invite all interested parties—both within and beyond the legal academy—to endorse the Statement by signing here. The signature campaign begins on International Women’s Day (March 8) and will end on Equal Pay Day (April 4). Organizers plan to report and present the results of the project to interested organizations, including the American Association of Law Schools, the American Bar Association, and the American Law Deans Association. More information about the Citizenship Project is available on the LWI website.

About LWI and ALWD: The Legal Writing Institute (LWI) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving legal communication by supporting the development of teaching and scholarly resources and establishing forums to discuss the study, teaching, and practice of professional legal writing. LWI has nearly 3,000 members representing 38 countries. The Association of Legal Writing Directors (ALWD) is a non-profit professional association of directors of legal reasoning, research, writing, analysis, and advocacy programs from law schools throughout the United States, Canada and Australia. ALWD has more than 300 members representing more than 150 law schools. The mission of ALWD is to pursue activities to help law schools provide excellent legal writing instruction.

Posted in Academia, Feminism and the Workplace, Feminists in Academia, Law Schools, Law Teaching, The Overrepresentation of Women | Comments Off on On International Women’s Day, Advocacy Groups Launch “Full Citizenship Project for Law Faculty”

Inniss from Cleveland-Marshall to SMU Dedman School of Law

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

In Fall 2017 Lolita Buckner Inniss will move from Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University to SMU Dedman School of Law. She will teach Property Law and Critical Race Theory.

Good news for SMU!

Posted in Academia | Comments Off on Inniss from Cleveland-Marshall to SMU Dedman School of Law

Vermont Law Seeks Earthjustice Clinical Professor

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

From colleagues at Vermont, this notice of a clinical opening:

Job Description:

The Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic (ENRLC) at Vermont Law School and Earthjustice are partnering to expand our environmental justice capacity through the creation of a new environmental justice initiative. We are hiring an attorney professor who will be located at the ENRLC and will work with Earthjustice’s Healthy Communities program and as part of the ENRLC’s growing environmental justice program area. Cases and projects will include Vermont and New England-based initiatives as well as efforts at the national level and in other areas of the United States.

Duties and Responsibilities:

The Earthjustice Clinical Professor will be a full-time attorney housed within the ENRLC. This position will be dedicated to working on environmental justice issues, with cases and projects chosen in collaboration between Earthjustice and the ENRLC. Specific responsibilities include:

  • In collaboration with and under the direction of Earthjustice and ENRLC attorneys, developing and implementing a suite of environmental justice cases and projects. Cases and projects may include state and federal litigation, influencing administrative agencies, legislative work, client counseling, and other advocacy.
  • Managing and fostering relationships with co-counsel, clients, and partners.
  • Coordinating with and contributing to other aspects of environmental justice campaign work, including education, outreach, and messaging.
  • Supervising and providing extensive feedback to students on project and casework.
  • Supervising one or more junior attorneys in the LLM Fellowship program.
  • Teaching in the ENRLC seminar program.
  • With other ENRLC faculty and staff, assisting in the administration of the ENRLC through regular participation in staff meetings, helping with the student recruitment process, assisting with public relations materials and reports, etc.
  • Participating in the life of the law school through attendance at faculty meetings and campus events, service on committees, and the like.


  • Minimum 7 years of significant legal experience, including litigation.
  • Licensed in Vermont or willing to become immediately licensed in Vermont.
  • Environmental justice experience preferred.
  • Demonstrates an awareness and sensitivity to the needs and concerns of individuals from diverse cultures, backgrounds and orientations.
  • Contributes to the creation of a diverse, equitable and inclusive work culture that encourages and celebrates differences.
  • Must possess: cultural competency and significant exposure to vulnerable, disadvantaged and/or ethnic minority populations; solid grounding in some aspect of environmental law that is relevant to the projected work of the environmental justice initiative; good narrative skills; history of supervising others in a legal context; excellent communication, analysis, and writing skills; demonstrated good judgment and sensitivity in a variety of situations; very strong academics, initiative, and work ethic; the ability to work exceedingly well with others; project management capability, including strong creative and strategic thinking skills; and a commitment to engaging in clinical teaching.

Additional Information:

This is a two-year position with the possibility of becoming permanent.

Application Instructions:

Please submit a cover letter, resume, law school transcript, writing sample, and references to Chantelle Brackett, Human Resources & Payroll Manager, Vermont Law School, PO Box 96, South Royalton, VT 05068. Electronic applications are strongly preferred and can be submitted online here. Applications will be considered as they are submitted. The position will remain open until filled.

More info available here.

Posted in Law Teaching | Comments Off on Vermont Law Seeks Earthjustice Clinical Professor

Washington State Considering Repeal of Tampon Tax OR Having Women Pay for DV Services

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

From the Vancouver (WA) Columbian:

Sen. Lynda Wilson, R-Vancouver, is hoping Senate Bill 5093 will exempt feminine hygiene products from retail and use tax. As she pointed out to the Senate Ways & Means Committee last week, they are medically necessary products. But if that measure fails to gain momentum, she’s also introduced Senate Bill 5092, which would use the tax that currently exists and reallocate the funds to help domestic violence victims.

The money would create a grant program called Women Helping Women under the Department of Commerce. Funds would be given annually to each county, based on population size, and help local law enforcement and prosecutors to offer support services for domestic violence and sexual assault victims.

The full article is here.

Isn’t the alternative bill — SB 5092 — basically making women pay for services that the government should be providing for all citizens? A similar move happened earlier in the UK (see here), and this Washington State bill seems to have the same impact: shift the cost onto women for services the violence done to them, mostly by men.

Posted in Women and Economics, Women's Health | Comments Off on Washington State Considering Repeal of Tampon Tax OR Having Women Pay for DV Services

Feldman and Gill on Gender and Oral Argument at the U.S. Supreme Court @AdamSFeldman

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Adam Feldman, Columbia University Law School and University of Southern California Political Science, and Rebecca D. Gill, University of Nevada, Law Vegas, have published Echoes from a Gendered Court: Examining the Justices’ Interactions During Supreme Court Oral Arguments. Here is the abstract.

Supreme Court oral arguments are the only publicly scheduled opportunities for the Justices and advocates to directly engage in discussions about a case. There are few rules to regulate these conversations. Within this unique setting and due to the lack of argument structure combined with the limited time allotted to each argument, the Justices vie for chances to speak, sometimes at the expense of utterances from other Justices. In this Article we examine how the Justices’ genders dictate much of the Justices’ interactions and ultimately the power structure of oral argument.

This Article shows how gender is an embedded characteristic of the oral arguments and how the Justices’ appropriations and perceptions of gender roles create disparities in the balance of authority on the Court. The Article’s analysis shows a major gap between male Justices’ interruptions of female Justices and female Justices interruptions’ of male Justices during oral arguments. After discussing why this is problematic, the Article offers suggestions for how the Court can reduce these interruptions through institutional reforms. The Article’s analyses corroborate conversational and power dynamics previously elucidated by sociolinguists, but also extend those findings to the insular environment of the United States Supreme Court.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Posted in Feminism and Law | Tagged , | Comments Off on Feldman and Gill on Gender and Oral Argument at the U.S. Supreme Court @AdamSFeldman

Nasty Women and the Rule of Law @woolleylaw

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Alice Wooley, University of Calgary School of Law, and Elysa Darling are publishing Nasty Women and the Rule of Law in the University of San Francisco Law Review. Here is the abstract.

Lawyer bashing is a robust and accepted social tradition. But recent events create the impression that women lawyers face more than the generic suggestions of dishonesty, untrustworthiness, greed and adversarialism that typify anti-lawyer criticisms. Criticisms and attacks on women lawyers are personal and gendered, as well as being intense and hostile, in a way that differs from the generic, often humorous, and impersonal nature of traditional antipathy to the legal profession. And even when women lawyers are viewed positively, commentary focuses on their looks, clothes and families, in a way that is not the case for men. This paper identifies the reasons for and consequences of how we talk about women lawyers.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Posted in Academia, Feminism and Law | Comments Off on Nasty Women and the Rule of Law @woolleylaw

Prenups, Gender and IP

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Should prenups assigning ideas and inventions not yet born be enforced? In my book Talent Wants to be Free I analyze the vast expansion of pre-innovation assignment agreements in employment relations — generic employment contracts that assign in advance any idea, whether patentable or not, whether copyrightable or not, whether it was conceived during work hours or not, whether it builds on company R&D or not — to the employer. In related research, including The New Cognitive Property, Driving Performance, and Enforceability TBD I warn that these developments can have negative effects on innovation as well as problematic distributional effects.

A related trend is the rise of couples signing prenups which pre-assign ideas and not-yet-developed IP — films, songs, software, brands and apps – to the partner who plans to develop them. The New York Times asked me to comment about these developments so I wrote a short op ed about this rising trend and in particular raise the question about potential gender inequities.

Are millennial-dominated start-up communities prone to the following pattern: The wife holds a steady job while the husband works on his app. They share the risk now, but if they divorce, the husband reaps the rewards of his intellectual property, and the prenup ensures his ex-wife, often wife # 1, gets nothing.

Would love to hear your thoughts – comment here or in the comments section of the NYT.
c/p Prawfs

Posted in Academia | Comments Off on Prenups, Gender and IP

Vocally Fried: Stereotypes, Nonverbal Behavior, and Societal Bias Against Women Attorneys

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Michael J. Higdon, University of Tennessee College of Law, is publishing Oral Advocacy and Vocal Fry: The Unseemly, Sexist Side of Nonverbal Persuasion in volume 13 of Legal Communication & Rhetoric: JALWD (2016). Here is the abstract.

In 2015, Naomi Wolf warned that “the most empowered generation of women ever — today’s twenty-somethings in North America and Britain — is being hobbled in some important ways by something as basic as a new fashion in how they use their voices.” She was referring to the phenomenon referred to as “vocal fry” — a speech quality in which the speaker lowers her natural pitch and produces a “creaking” sound as she talks. Naomi Wolf is not alone in her warnings; vocal fry has received quite a bit of negative attention recently. Specifically, these critics warn that those who speak in vocal fry are doing themselves great harm by undermining the speakers’ overall perceived effectiveness. In fact, recent studies even lend some support to these arguments, showing that listeners tend to rate those who speak in vocal fry more negatively.

The problem, however, is that much of this criticism is directed at young women, and for that reason, some defenders of vocal fry have countered that these criticisms are merely attempts to regulate how women talk. In other words, a preference for speech that does not contain vocal fry is actually motivated by pernicious stereotypes about how women “should” talk.

Thus, on the one hand, there are those studies supporting the argument that women who engage in vocal fry are less likely to be perceived positively, yet on the other hand, there exists the very real likelihood that these perceptions are based on gender stereotypes. Accordingly, the question emerges: what should a young woman do? Should she eliminate all instances of vocal fry from her speech so as to maximize her perceived effectiveness as a public speaker if, in so doing, she is reinforcing the very gender stereotypes upon which such preferences are based? Or should she openly confront such stereotypes and employ vocal fry as much as she likes, knowing that, by taking that approach, she is taking the risk that she might be hurting not only herself but also those upon whose behalf she speaks?

This essay, by first discussing this background on vocal fry, delves into that very dilemma. It does so specifically in the context of female attorneys given that 1) public speaking is a key component upon which their effectiveness is gauged and 2) to the extent their public speaking is judged to be less than ideal, they are not only harming themselves, but also potentially a client. Finally, in wrestling with this question, these essay hopes to shed light on a bigger concern — specifically, how useful are studies on effective nonverbal behavior when the results of those studies are largely driven by underlying societal prejudice.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

Posted in Feminism and Law | Comments Off on Vocally Fried: Stereotypes, Nonverbal Behavior, and Societal Bias Against Women Attorneys

White Paper on Title IX & the Preponderance of the Evidence, 3d Edition

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Please see the “third edition” of the White Paper on Title IX & the Preponderance of the Evidence at the link below, including the first 100 signatures from law professors across the country.  We will continue to accept signatures from law faculty members as long as law faculty members wish to sign on to the White Paper, and we will post updated editions of the White Paper as we receive additional signatures.  To add yourself as a signatory, please email your full name and the URL for your faculty webpage to Nancy Chi Cantalupo at


Posted in Academia, Activism, Acts of Violence, Sex and Sexuality, Sexual Harassment | Comments Off on White Paper on Title IX & the Preponderance of the Evidence, 3d Edition

Interview with Dana Brooks Cooper, Florida Attorney Challenging the “Tampon Tax”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Earlier this year, Bridget J. Crawford spoke with Dana Brooks Cooper, Esq. of Barret, Fasig & Brooks in Tallahassee, Florida.  Ms. Brooks is representing the plaintiff in a class action that challenges the Florida “tampon tax,” the state sales tax imposed on feminine hygiene products. In this interview, Ms. Brooks provides an update on the case of Wendell v. Florida Department of Revenue et al. currently pending in the Circuit Court, Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, Florida.

Bridget Crawford:  When we last spoke in July, you recently had filed the complaint on behalf of a plaintiff in the class action.  What is the status of the case at this point?

Dana Brooks Cooper: Things have been moving along. We have amended our Complaint in response to a Motion to Dismiss from the Government Defendants and we took that opportunity to include two great new additional plaintiffs. Currently, we’re in the process of responding to a new Motion to Dismiss from the Department of Revenue and have filed our own Motion for Partial Summary Judgment for Declaratory Relief. So, while there haven’t been any substantive rulings yet, we feel like we’re making progress.

Crawford:  Does it seem that the legislature is paying close attention to this case?

Dana Brooks Cooper

Dana Brooks Cooper

Cooper: We have not heard anything on this lately, although right after the lawsuit was filed, Senator Simmons had expressed a desire to introduce legislation to abolish the tax but cited pending litigation as a potential problem in doing that.  The legislature is due to start committee meetings later this year and we will be closely monitoring those.

Crawford:  If the Florida legislature were to pass a bill exempting menstrual hygiene products from sales tax in the future, do you think that the class would still want to press for a refund of past taxes paid?

Cooper: Absolutely. Getting the law changed would be a big victory, but it is only part of the battle. Millions of dollars in illegal taxes have already been paid by the women of Florida and we intend to do everything we can to get their money back.

Crawford:  From your perspective, what’s the relationship of the tampon tax to larger issues of equality for women?

Cooper: it seems like a small thing, but to me it’s indicative of so much more. Prior to 1986, these products were exempt from sales tax in Florida and there seems to be absolutely no basis for the Legislature’s decision to start taxing these items. Now more than ever, I believe we cannot just stand aside and let these unfair and arbitrarily discriminatory practices continue, either through inattention or because it seems like there are always bigger fish to fry. It’s important for women, and those who support them, to step up and make their voices heard in every possible arena.  We know we cannot rely on the media to conduct their own independent investigations of these things because until someone calls attention to it, they are as much in the dark as the rest of us are.

Crawford:  What has been the reaction of your colleagues in the Florida bar to this case?

Cooper: Overwhelmingly supportive. No one I have spoken with has any idea how the legislature can claim this tax is justified. I frequently get asked for updates on the case. People want to know what’s going on and why their elected officials have not embraced our cause and run with it.

Crawford:  Thank you for this update!  We will be following this case with great interest.

Cooper: Thank you. We appreciate your continued interest and support. We plan to keep fighting the good fight.

Posted in Courts and the Judiciary, Women and Economics, Women's Health | Comments Off on Interview with Dana Brooks Cooper, Florida Attorney Challenging the “Tampon Tax”