Another Law Review Enters the “Where Are The Women” Sweepstakes: The new issue of the NYU Law Review features 0 articles by women and one note out of three.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Via Concurring Opinions, the ToC


Originalism Is Bunk
Mitchell N. Berman

Class Certification in the Age of Aggregate Proof
Richard A. Nagareda

Temporary-Effect Legislation, Political Accountability, and Fiscal Restraint
George K. Yin

Limiting Preemption in Environmental Law: An Analysis of the Cost-Externalization Argument and California Assembly Bill 1493
Brian T. Burgess

The Implementation of “Balanced Diversity” Through the Class Action Fairness Act
Jacob R. Karabell

New Dirty War Judgments in Argentina: National Courts and Domestic Prosecutions of International Human Rights Violations
Margarita K. O’Donnell

This entry was posted in Academia, Feminism and Law, The Underrepresentation of Women. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Another Law Review Enters the “Where Are The Women” Sweepstakes: The new issue of the NYU Law Review features 0 articles by women and one note out of three.

  1. efink says:

    It appears “balanced diversity” is of interest only as pertains to federal subject matter jurisdiction.

  2. Drew says:

    In order to not be misleading, you might want to look at more than one issue. For instance, from 2005-2007, the N.Y.U. Law Review published 35 notes by male authors and 34 notes by female authors. Data on Note publication by gender at the top 15 law reviews is available in Nancy Leong’s, “A Noteworthy Absence,” as noted on this blog,

  3. Ann Bartow says:

    Well Drew, in order for YOU not to “be misleading” you might provide gender data on note publication that is not limited to a 3 year period. And, perhaps you’d like to provide gender data on authors of articles (rather than notes) for the past ten years or so?

  4. Drew says:

    Sorry, I don’t have the data on articles authors.

    I also don’t have more data on note publications. I used 2005-2007 because this data was recently collected for Nancy Leong’s piece. Of course, this data is nothing more than a snapshot of that time period. But surely it is more helpful than 1 issue!

  5. Dimitri says:

    Actually, student scholarship is a better way to judge a Law Review than professor’s scholarship. How much quality scholarship by women (or for that matter, by younger scholars, by LGBT scholars, by minority scholars, or by any other group) is the function factors beyond a Law Review’s control. How many women are being given fellowships at law schools that give them the time to research and author an article? How many women are being invited to workshop their articles and being given quality comments by experienced scholars? How many women are being admitted to law schools to begin with? Are women being given sufficient mentorship and support at law schools to enable them to advance? All of these are questions which are so frequently given answers that result in less scholarship by women. It cannot be expected that a Law Review can ameliorate all these factors, which together reduce the quantity of submissions by female authors considerably. This blog’s project of attacking the Law Reviews just shield the law schools and the institutional structure that makes it harder for the non-straight white male. It scapegoats the symptom and ignores the disease.

    On the other hand, student scholarship is a way that a journal can contribute to gender balance, because students on the journal stand on equal footing. It’s simply a question of whether a Senior Notes Editor and other Notes Editors work hard to shepherd the notes of every student through the process regardless of gender (or race, or sexual orientation, or 1L grades). Done well, the notes process can be a strong equalizer, whereas the articles process can unfortunately do little when systemic factors have made it very difficult for female authors (lack of funding, lack of support, lack of equal admission to top law schools).

    As to the three years versus ten years. Drew responded to a post that drew conclusions about a Law Review on the basis of 1/6 of a year of articles and notes by providing three years worth of data. Kind of strange to say the person providing three years is misleading, but the person providing 1/6 of a year is making a good point. Also worth noting that all Drew was doing was quoting an article featured on this blog that happened to discuss this Law Review as the only one that achieved gender parity during the studied period. Perhaps we should go back and accuse the entire blog of being misleading for citing an article that only used three years worth of data. Why would ten years be not misleading? Why not a hundred?

  6. Ann Bartow says:

    Wow, your level of defensiveness is staggering. And speaks for itself.

  7. Seamus says:

    “Wow, your level of defensiveness is staggering. And speaks for itself.”

    Why does it speak for itself? What does it say?

    Do you think it is right to be so glib about this issue or these thoughtful responses?

  8. lauraspitz says:

    I strongly disagree with Drew that the mix of female and male Article authors is largely out of law review hands, but that the number of Comments/Notes reflects a balance that can be explained by some combination of “control” and a sensitivity to gender…. But we could talk more about that later.

    In the meantime, some time ago I had a research assistant pull numbers from 2001-2006 for authors by sex for NYU, Michigan, Stanford, Columbia and Pennsylvania. The numbers we came up with were:

    articles: 17 female; 70 male
    essays: 5 female; 14 male
    comments/notes: 17 female; 23 male

    articles: 19 female, 50 male
    essays: 11 female. 37 male
    comments/notes: 38 female, 45 male

    Stanford (who had no female editor-in-chief any of these years):
    articles: 32 female; 104 male
    essays: 0 female; 1 male
    comments/notes: 20 female; 42 male

    articles: 25 female; 45 male
    essays: 0 female; 4 male
    comments/notes: 45 female; 61 male (ahem…. Drew, even on your terms???)

    articles: 16 female; 38 male
    essays: 1 female; 6 male
    comments/notes: 21 female; 38 male

Comments are closed.