Where are the Women? Not Too Many in the October, November or December Issues of the Columbia Law Review. Eighteen of Twenty-One Published Authors are Male. Only One Author is a Woman Law Prof.

Post to Twitter

October:

In memoriam–Louis Lowenstein. Tributes by Harvey J. Goldschmid, Kenneth P. Kopelman, Arthur W. Murphy, William Savitt and David M. Schizer. 109 Colum. L. Rev. 1263-1277 (2009).

Miller, Darrell A.H. Guns as smut: defending the home-bound Second Amendment. 109 Colum. L. Rev. 1278-1356 (2009).

Zatz, Noah D. Managing the Macaw: third-party harassers, accommodation, and the disaggregation of discriminatory intent. 109 Colum. L. Rev. 1357-1439 (2009).

Rao, Devi M. Note. “Making medical assistance available”: enforcing the Medicaid Act’s availability provision through Section 1983 litigation. 109 Colum. L. Rev. 1440-1481 (2009).

Salganik, Samuel C. Note. What the unconstitutional conditions doctrine can teach us about ERISA preemption: is it possible to consistently identify “coercive” pay-or-play schemes? 109 Colum. L. Rev. 1482-1530 (2009).

Freeman, Jody and Andrew Guzman. Climate change and U.S. interests. 109 Colum. L. Rev. 1531-1601 (2009).

November:

ARTICLES
The Correspondence of Contract and Promise
By: Jody S. Kraus

Rethinking Free Speech and Civil Liability
By: Daniel J. Solove & Neil M. Richards

ESSAYS & BOOK REVIEWS
Custom, Noncustomary Practice, and Negligence
By: Kenneth S. Abraham

NOTES
Loophole.com: How the FEC’s Failure to Fully Regulate the Internet Undermines Campaign Finance Law
By: Daniel W. Butrymowicz

Rethinking Fannie and Freddie’s New Insolvency Regime
By: Carol J. Perry

December:

ARTICLES
Beyond Protection
By: Philip Hamburger

ESSAYS & BOOK REVIEWS
A Practical Solution to the Reference Class Problem
By: Edward K. Cheng

NOTES
The Illegality of Vertical Patrols
By: Adam Carlis

The “Usual Incidents of Citizenship”: Rethinking When People with Disabilities Must Participate in Public Variance Proceedings
By: Stephen F. Hayes

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

2 Responses to Where are the Women? Not Too Many in the October, November or December Issues of the Columbia Law Review. Eighteen of Twenty-One Published Authors are Male. Only One Author is a Woman Law Prof.

  1. wordpress23 says:

    The idea that the law review discriminates against women is ludicrous. The editor-in-chief is a woman. Three of six executive board members are women. Three of seven editors on the articles committee are women. The head of the essays committee is a woman. Overall, 17 of 32 members in a position of responsibility are women.

    Law reviews are just looking to get the best articles they can find. Sometimes those articles are by women, sometimes they are by men. Maybe men wrote more article this past semester? Maybe men just happened to write more good articles? Given the tiny sample size, it could well even have been pure happenstance. In any case, every law review’s job is to publish the most thoughtful work it can find, not to artificially fill quotas.

  2. Bridget Crawford says:

    Does leadership by women act as an insurance policy against discrimination against women? No.

    Could it be “pure happenstance” that the “best” articles submitted to this journal during this season were written by men? Yes.

    Is there a larger national trend here? Yes. Minna Kotkin documents that in her “Of Authorship and Audacity Article,” http://ssrn.com/abstract=1140644.

    Bias (of all kinds) can be conscious and unconscious. Unless there is a truly blind submission and review process, I am not persuaded by the happenstance argument.

Comments are closed.