Feminist Law Professors

Some Democrats are going to try to change that. The linked article notes:

The Institute for Women’s Policy Research found that 77 percent of workers in the lowest quarter by wages did not have paid sick days, while 43 percent of middle-class workers did not and 31 percent of workers in the top quarter did not.

As a result of this post, Rep. Kucinich’s office asked to have the following posted here:

I stand with every Member of the House in defense of the rights of individuals to be free of bodily harm or injury under all and any circumstances. But, the fact of the matter is, existing Federal law already includes any place which does Federal research.

So the question is, why create a new and specific classification here?

We, of course, need to protect peoples’ right to conduct their work without fear of assault. But, a larger question remains yet unanswered by this Congress: How should animals be treated humanely?

There are some specific principles with respect to humane treatment of animals but, these do not go far enough. My concern about this bill is that it does nothing to address the real issue of animal protection but, instead targets those advocating animal rights. This legislation will have a real and chilling effect on people’s Constitutionally protected First Amendment rights.

I am not talking about people who would threaten anyone with death because they don’t agree with them, but there are individuals who love animals, who don’t want to see animals hurt, who have a point and a right to speak out. I think for that reason, this bill has not yet reached its maturity.

I understand what the sponsors of this bill are trying to do, but I don’t think that they will reach the end they are hoping to achieve unless this Congress makes a clear statement about ethical principles with respect to animals and how we treat animals in research and other enterprise.

These are very serious questions that millions of Americans care about. I understand the intent here, but I think that you must be very careful about painting everyone with the broad brush of terrorism who might have a legitimate objection to research with or treatment of animals that is inhumane.

Bringing up a bill like this under procedures that only allow limited debate, and no amendments, no matter how well intentioned, is problematic.

I am not and never have been in favor of anyone using a cloak of free speech to commit violence. The Supreme Court Justice said, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. No one has the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. We have heard those kinds of admonitions.

I am not for anyone abusing their rights by damaging another person’s property or person, but I am for protecting the First Amendment and not creating a special class of violations for a specific type of protest.

Balancing Constitutional concerns against the protection of people and property is never easy. Unfortunately, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act goes too far in the wrong direction.

I have never, as far as I can recall, had the opportunity to vote for (or against) Dennis Kucinich and as far as I can remember, have never given him any money. He has most assuredly never given me any. I post this because I agree with his position on this law, and because I agree with Catharine MacKinnon that the treatment of animals is a feminist issue.

–Ann Bartow

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on a pay equity case brought by a former Goodyear manager, Lilly Ledbetter. You can read about the case here, but the basic question was whether a woman who found out about sex-based pay discrimination years after the discriminatory acts can sue or whether the statute of limitations bars the suit because the discriminatory acts are too far in the past.

What’s interesting to me about the case is that the technical point about the statute of limitations raises the very important issue of the “last taboo.” Feminist Law Prof Kathryn Stanchi co-wrote a piece a few years ago mentioning the taboo in American culture against discussing salary. She and a legal writing colleague then critiqued the salary structure within legal academia for writing professors.

What’s relevant to Monday’s Supreme Court argument is the introduction of the piece and its discussion of the way the last taboo enables discrimination:

One of the last American taboos prohibits discussion of salary. Although it is commonplace for sexual and family dysfunction to be discussed on afternoon television, most people still consider asking about salary to be rude and intrusive. American competitiveness may be the reason for the strength and longevity of the taboo. Information is power; the amount of money a person earns can be a measure of success, personal worth and even masculinity. Information about money is especially powerful and dangerous.

Even though the strength of the taboo in the business world is largely dependent on employees adhering to the code of silence, it is employers who reap the primary benefit of the taboo. An employer is empowered when employees will not discuss salary among themselves. By shielding employers from scrutiny decisions about salary, the taboo frees employers to set salaries using whatever criteria they choose. Thus, the taboo can free the employer to discriminate-even on unlawful bases. If there is a discriminatory salary differential in an institution, but nobody knows about it, the differential simply does not exist for anyone outside of the institutional decision-makers.

Let’s hope the Supreme Court recognizes the way this secrecy contributed to Lilly Ledbetter’s situation and eases the statute of limitations to accommodate this last taboo.

– David S. Cohen

Pennylvania mothers rally against a form of job discrimination. Their state is one of many where it’s not illegal to refuse ask about marital or family status during a job interview. Joel Rose of member station WHYY reports.

Via kickass activist Kiki Peppard.