Where are the Women? Northwestern Law Review Edition

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Current Issue: Special Issue 2009: Vol. 103, Issue 2


Foreword: Original Ideas on Originalism Brian A. Lichter &  David P. Baltmanis
Constitutional Ambiguities and Originalism: Lessons from the Spending Power Lynn A. Baker
Framework Originalism and the Living Constitution Jack M. Balkin
The Misconceived Assumption About Constitutional Assumptions Randy E. Barnett
Two Cheers for Professor Balkin’s Originalism Steven G. Calabresi & Livia Fine
Original Intention and Public Meaning in Constitutional Interpretation Richard S. Kay
Phony Originalism and the Establishment Clause Andrew Koppelman
Original Methods Originalism: A New Theory of Interpretation and the Case Against Construction John O. McGinnis & Michael B. Rappaport
Reconciling Originalism and Precedent John O. McGinnis & Michael B. Rappaport
Does the Constitution Prescribe Rules for Its Own Interpretation? Michael Stokes Paulsen
District of Columbia v. Heller and Originalism Lawrence B. Solum
Against Textualism William MichaelTreanor

Two out of fourteen is pathetic (two out of sixteen if you count the “double-dip” of Professors McGinniss and Rappaport).  But kudos to Steven Calabresi for co-authoring with a student.

Were the students at Northwestern really so unresourceful that they could only drum up one female Con Law scholar in the entire United States?  Or did they not care?  Are the law reviews’ faculty advisors totally uninterested and uninvolved?

If you shout out for “all the ladies in the house” and hear the echo of your own voice, that’s not a good sign for gender equality.

-Bridget Crawford

This entry was posted in Law Schools, The Underrepresentation of Women. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Where are the Women? Northwestern Law Review Edition

  1. efink says:

    Perhaps the lack of women is an originalist homage to the Founding Fathers?

Comments are closed.