Feminist Law Professors

Establishing Norms for #Law Student Participation in Remote Learning: Turn Cameras on and Mute That Mic (“virtual background” is your friend)

Posted on March 11, 2020 by Bridget Crawford

Like many law schools, my institution has decided to move all classes on-line, to the extent possible, at least until March 29. The Elisabeth Haub School of Law is located in Westchester County, New York. Governor Andrew Cuomo has deployed the National Guard and established a 1-mile “containment area” a few towns over in New Rochelle, New York.

These are unusual times.

Today is the first day that my colleagues and I started teaching on-line. My message, to myself and my colleagues, is to do what you can, with whatever technology you feel comfortable with, and strive for excellence but not perfection. In other words, we are all going to make mistakes in the on-line classroom, in the same way we make mistakes in the traditional classroom. (I made quite a few in my class this morning.) Many of us are feeling overwhelmed as we figure out the technologies that enable us to teach on line. It seems that at every turn, there is another webinar or click-through to consult.

We will get through this, with patience and good cheer. Our students want us to succeed; we want them to succeed. We will not leave our students behind. This will be difficult, for sure. But we will support each other and continue to grow as individuals and as communities.

But how to foster community if I can’t see my students and my students can’t see each other? There are technologies that enable us to easily have the equivalent of a massive on-line conference call. But what if students won’t turn on their cameras? I had more than one colleague say that fewer than half of students turned their cameras on. What if students have on their cameras, but I can see their messy beds, partially eaten meals and … less than professional aspects of their lives?

Every instructor must decide what message to convey to students about virtual “presence.” Mine is this:

I recognize students may not have reliable internet access, or may have internet problems at any particular moment. Not all students will have cameras or microphones on their laptops, especially if they have older machines. I get it (I’ve been there!). For these reasons, I’ll make sure that students can participate in the on-line session by phone. All students also will have access to a recording of the session. It’s not ideal; it’s not the experience any of us signed up for. But we will make sure that the students’ learning is not set back.

That being said, I believe it is reasonable to ask students will use the phone option as a back-up measure, not all the time, unless they can let me know. Students who are physically and technologically able to attend the synchronous class in its regularly scheduled time-slot should do so.

In my class, I consider it part of my student’s professional obligation to turn on their cameras, mute their microphones, and remain present for the entire time. Instructors certainly need to be understanding if someone needs to step away from their computer, just as we would be in a traditional class. But the expectation is that the instructors should be able to see the students and vice versa, as a matter of creating and building community. Very few people like to see themselves on camera (I know I don’t). By turning on the camera, we are showing up for each other and saying, “I’m a part of this. We’ll get through this together.”

We will!

P.S. To my students, I don’t care if you have made your bed. I care about your education. Show up in whatever way you can. We’ll work it out (but you might want to check out the “virtual background” function in Zoom….)

Posted in Law Teaching | Comments Off

Tips for Teaching #Law Online, in the Event of a COVID-19 Shut Down of Law Schools

Posted on March 7, 2020 by Bridget Crawford

I’ve been teaching Federal Income Tax and Wills,Trusts & Estates in mixed live/online formats since 2009. I put together a short video for colleagues with thoughts about how to teach law classes in distance formats, whether synchronous or asynchronous, if the public health situation requires us to do so. The video does not address technology issues (i.e., what format is best for any one particular class), but rather offers thoughts on big picture issues/concerns when moving a traditional law class on line. A few of the tips are idiosyncratic to my school (i.e., who to ask for help supporting a particular program), but most of the tips are applicable across the legal academy.

To summarize, my tips are these:

If you are teaching synchronously, try to do so in your regularly scheduled class time, so as not to create scheduling conflicts for students. If you are teaching asynchronously, try to get your recordings/assignments up before the class otherwise would meet live, or, as a default, no later than 24 hours after a regularly scheduled class would have met.
Keep our eyes on the goal of delivering the best educational experience we can, within the constraints we are have, including time and training. Don’t feel like you have to radically re-organize your course.
Instructor availability to students matters especially in the distance format — make sure to schedule virtual office hours. Consistency is important. Don’t suddenly add new assignments and requirements just because the class unexpectedly must be taught in a distance format. Make sure to stay in regular contact with students.
Random additional nuggets of wisdom I’ve acquired in teaching online for 11 years:

- Employ visuals, especially if teaching a class asynchronously. I don’t like to see myself on screen, but it’s not about me. The student feedback is that they feel more connected when they can see their instructor.
- Provide students a roadmap when teaching online, whether in the format of an outline that can be downloaded, or a list on the screen that students can reference during the online session.
- Record in small chunks. Don’t do what I did for years, and make the mistake of recording sessions that lasted 1 hour 50 minutes. Break the session into 20-minute segments. If you have to rerecord, you’ll be glad to have to re-do one segment only. Also, if you don’t refer to super-current events, you may end up building a library of recordings that you can use in future semesters.
- Develop appropriate mechanisms for attendance and accountability. Obviously, if large numbers of students are sick, very strict attendance policies will need to be relaxed, but you’ll want to be able to monitor student progress.
- Build in lots of opportunities for feedback to students. I do this through quizzes (that do not count toward a student’s grade) that provide students with the opportunity to apply the material from the distance class session.
- Much of what we do in live classes can be done via distance sessions — group work, working with a partner, self-assessment, etc. With a little creative thinking, we can do those things slightly differently (and equally successfully) online.
- The students want their professors to be successful instructors just as much as we want them to to be successful learners. We’re all in this together and will work together to deliver the best education we can under the circumstances. Perfection isn’t required.

The video (about 24 minutes) is available below for anyone who is interested.

(cross-posted from Faculty Lounge)

Posted in Law Teaching | Comments Off

McCrudden on Gender-Based Positive Action in Employment in Europe

Posted on March 2, 2020 by Christine Corcos

Christopher McCrudden, Queen’s University Belfast School of Law, has published Gender-Based Positive Action in Employment in Europe: A Comparative Analysis of Legal and Policy Approaches in the EU and EEA. Here is the abstract.

This report considers the use of ‘positive action’ as a key mechanism to advance women’s equality in employment, and to ensure gender-balanced company boards. ‘Positive action’ involves the use of measures that are taken by Governments or other actors to: enable or encourage members of ‘protected groups’ (such as women) to overcome or at least reduce current or past disadvantages (including discrimination); to meet the needs of the protected group that differ from other groups; or to enable or encourage those in the protected groups to participate in a particular activity where they might otherwise be under-represented. The report identifies the current legal and regulatory frameworks and scope of positive action in European Union law and policy, and in the 28 European Union Member States (including the United Kingdom), and the three members of the European Economic Area (comprising Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). The report aims to lay bare tensions and gaps that may arise in the applicable legal framework between different levels of legal authority, but in particular between EU law and national approaches to positive action. Addressing this issue involves a reflection on whether there are possible inconsistencies or shortcomings in the current EU legal treatment of positive action (including the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union). In light of this analysis, the report makes recommendations for possible European Union action, including suggestions for actions that may be included in any forthcoming EU gender strategy.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Posted in Academia | Comments Off

Talking with High School Students about the #Tampon Tax

Posted on February 28, 2020 by Bridget Crawford

South Carolina high school sophomore Logan Kenny

Logan Kenny is a high school sophomore attending USC Upstate through the Scholar’s Academy program located in South Carolina. She is currently working on a research paper about the tax on feminine-hygiene products in the US. She recently contacted Professor Crawford with some questions about the tampon tax. The results of their written interview appear below.

Logan Kenny: Who benefits from the tax and what is done with the money collected from the tax?

Bridget Crawford: The most immediate benefit is to the states that impose a sales tax on menstrual products. Sales tax is a much more important source of revenue than, say, the income tax in most states. So in general, the sales tax is a big part of any state’s budget. That being said, the sales tax on revenue from menstrual products is truly a small percentage of the budget. In California, for example, revenue from the tampon tax was just 0.011% of the state’s budget for 2018-2019.

Logan Kenny: Is the tax a violation against human rights? Why?

Bridget Crawford: My colleague Carla Spivack (Oklahoma City University School of Law) and I have argued (here) that the tax on menstrual products deeply implicates the right to be free from discrimination, the right to health, and the right to education, to give just three examples. The Colombian Constitutional Court ruled in 2018 that the tampon tax violates women’s sexual and reproductive rights, as well as rights to dignity and autonomy. The same court affirmed that the City of Bogotá must provide pads for homeless women. Failing to do so, the court reasoned, violates human rights. In Europe, there have not yet been any cases that have come before the European Court of Human Rights or the European Court of Justice, but both courts have recognized that taxation is a human rights issue, so I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw some cases in the future.

Logan Kenny: Why is it important for the tax to be eliminated?

Bridget Crawford: Stephanie Arnold and Sharron Champion, founders of The Homeless Period Project in Greenville, South Carolina, are doing such good work on this issue. They saw in their own community, through their volunteer work with schools and churches, that too many women and girls didn’t have access to the basic products they need. They saw that too many people were choosing between feeding themselves and their families, or buying menstrual products. That’s a choice that no one should have to make. Removing the tax from menstrual products is just one small step in the direction of making menstrual products more affordable. If we want all people to have the opportunity to participate as equals in all aspects of public life, they must be able to meet their involuntary biological needs.

Logan Kenny: Feminine products have a tax while, in some states, male specific products such as erectile dysfunction medication do not. Why do you think this is?

Bridget Crawford: Generally speaking, all items are subject to sales tax unless they are specifically made exempt. Most states have exemptions for items that are considered to be necessities. Medications, such as Viagra, are commonly considered necessities. I don’t think there has been some grand conspiracy to tax women specifically. Rather, it is the failure to exempt menstrual products — an inaction — that is the problem. My colleague and co-author Emily Gold Waldman and I (here) have attributed the failure to exempt these products from a general squeamishness about talking openly about menstrual products and women’s bodily functions. And if lawmakers do not talk about the biological need for these products, then menstrual products will never make it onto the list of exempt items.

Logan Kenny: Some people argue that eliminating the tax would raise the tax on other items. Is this an acceptable argument and why/why not?

Bridget Crawford: Simply put, states should repeal the tampon tax because the tax is unconstitutional. Legally speaking, it’s no defense to an unconstitutional law to say, “We have to keep discriminating because non-discrimination is expensive.” Practically speaking, if a state does the right thing and eliminates the sales tax on menstrual products, there is zero evidence that other taxes will increase. States like New York and Florida, to name just two, eliminated their tampon taxes without increasing other taxes.

Logan Kenny: What are other misconceptions that people may have about eliminating the tax? Why are they not credible?

Bridget Crawford: I was surprised to read (here) that one Virginia lawmaker objected to including menstrual products in the state’s annual three-day sales tax holiday, for fear that women would “abuse” the privilege. And there is the high school principal (here) who initially turned down students’ request for free menstrual products in school bathrooms, on the grounds that the girls would “abuse the privilege.” These men seem to fundamentally misunderstand both menstruation and women. Menstruation is an involuntary biological process. Girls and women aren’t out to profit from their periods, gobbling up resources for the sake of it. Would that lawmaker say the same thing about toilet paper? Does the high school principal worry that students widely and systematically abuse the availability of hand towels in the bathroom? I doubt it. Their comments are outright sexist.

Logan Kenny: What is needed by state legislation in order to eliminate the tax?

Bridget Crawford: The legislative solution is very simple, and I am willing to work on a pro bono basis with any state legislature that wants to repeal its tax. Simply add menstrual products to the list of tax-exempt items! Professor Elizabeth Cooper and her students in the Legislative and Policy Advocacy Clinic at Fordham Law School, together with the nonprofit Period Equity, have put together a fantastic set of advocacy materials (here) that citizens can use to advocate for repeal in their state.

Logan Kenny: Why is that the majority of women use tampons/pads, yet they are not deemed a necessity to be taxed exempt? What qualifies an item to be tax exempt?

Bridget Crawford: Tax exemptions is a matter of legislative grace. In other words, lawmakers have to declare that a particular category of goods is tax-exempt. Medical supplies, for example, are typically tax-exempt. But conceptually, we know that menstrual products are not “medical supplies,” like bandages or gauze, in the sense that we don’t use them because we are hurt or ill. We use them because we have female biology. But there is no reason to have to shoehorn menstrual products into existing categories of tax-exempt items. The state legislature can declare them to be tax-exempt. This is easy, from a practical perspective. More importantly, it is required by our nation’s Constitution.

Logan Kenny: Were feminine hygiene products always taxed? If not, when were they imposed?

Bridget Crawford: State sales tax has not been a long-time feature of the U.S. system. Scholars debate about which state first adopted a modern sales tax as we know it, but the state sales appears to originate in the 1920s. Vermont didn’t adopt a sales tax until 1969! So the state sales tax is relatively “young” as taxes go. Other taxes have been around since colonial times. The federal estate tax, by way of comparison, was instituted in 1916.

Logan Kenny: What do you think the economy would look like if the tax was eliminated vs keeping the tax?

Bridget Crawford: Making menstrual products more affordable can have a huge positive impact on the economy. If schools, work, and public life were designed with women in mind, we’d have the full potential participation of our entire population.

Logan Kenny: How many girls/women can’t afford these products as of right now? What do they have to resort to?

Bridget Crawford: Nationwide, over half of all public school students qualify for free or low-cost lunch. In cities like New York, for example, and in Miami-Dade County in Florida, that percentage is over 70%. To talk about just the student population, if a student cannot afford menstrual products and the school does not provide them, many students will feel like they need to miss school. Professor Christopher Cotropia at the University of Richmond has documented (here) that missing school, coming late to school, or leaving school early is correlated to the inability to afford menstrual products. This is an absolute educational and economic tragedy that must be addressed. It is a stark deprivation of the rights of all students to equal access to education. My co-authors Emily Waldman and Margaret Johnson and I explain in our article Title IX and Menstruation, forthcoming in the Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, that schools’ failure to provide menstruating students with easily accessible tampons and pads negatively affects students’ access to equal educational opportunities. We believe that Title IX should require schools to provide these products.

Conversations around the tampon tax make clear how much we need leaders of all ages in every community. Young people grasp quite easily how important it is that girls and women have access to the products they need in order to be full and equal participants in all aspects of public life. And eliminating the tampon tax is a huge part of increasing access. When we see that half of the population bears a financial burden because of their biology, the inequality is obvious. The tax law is an effective prism that allows us to quantify unfairness in dollars and cents.

Posted in Academia | Comments Off

On Teaching Torts with a Focus on Race and Racism @wrigginsmelaw

Posted on February 14, 2020 by Bridget Crawford

Jennifer Wriggins (Maine) has a post over here at the Race and the Law Prof Blog on Teaching Torts with a Focus on Race and Racism.

Posted in Law Teaching, Race and Racism | Comments Off

Kids Are Always Welcome in My Law School Classes

Posted on February 14, 2020 by Bridget Crawford

Any student of mine is welcome to bring children to my class any time, no advance notice required. Child care issues should not get in the way of attendance. We’ll work it out!

Kids have great perspectives on tax fairness, fiduciary duty, choice of business entity.

I’ve been there myself. I’m on your side.

Posted in Law Teaching | Comments Off

High School Students in Idaho Taking on the Tampon Tax – @MHS_Bobcats

Posted on February 14, 2020 by Bridget Crawford

Students at Madison High School in Idaho are taking on the tampon tax. The local newspaper, the Standard Journal, reported here that a group of seniors are proposing solutions as part of their “Project Citizen” work:

Adeline Winn, Madison Jensen, Tanner Averill, Carlie Meredith and Zach Le made up the group.

The group reported that Idaho is one of 32 states that taxes women for menstrual hygiene products. They also reported there is no tax on male enhancement products, and such is unconstitutional.

“We’d like feminine menstrual products to be exempted from Idaho sales tax,” Averill said. ***

When women and girls can’t afford to buy new sanitary products, they’ll reuse products thus putting them at risk for toxic shock syndrome, a fatal bacterial infection. Other times, women rely on cloths, rags, tissues, toilet paper and paper towels from public restrooms, she said.

The group reported the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stating that one in five women struggle to buy menstrual products at least once a month. The average woman spends up to $300 a year on feminine hygiene products, and that cost doubles should there be daughters in the home.

The group suggested that each of the Madison High School’s seven girl’s restrooms be stocked with free sanitary napkins and tampons. Currently, the school charges 25 cents for each. It would cost the school an estimated $760 a month to refill dispensers. Buying such products would help girls focus on class and relieve them of embarrassing situations, they said.

Le said that eliminating the tax on menstrual products would benefit women and their families.

Kudos to these students for raising awareness of the issue and coming up with practical solutions. People of all ages are leading the way on menstrual equity and justice. We see you, Madison High School students!

Posted in Activism, Women and Economics, Women's Health | Comments Off

New Book Announcement: David S. Cohen & Carole Joffee, “Obstacle Course: The Everyday Struggle to Get an Abortion in America:

Posted on February 12, 2020 by Bridget Crawford

The University of California Press has published a new book, Obstacle Course: The Everyday Struggle to Get an Abortion in America, by David S. Cohen (Drexel) and Carole Joffe (Sociology, UCSF). Here is the publisher’s description:

It seems unthinkable that citizens of one of the most powerful nations in the world must risk their lives and livelihoods in the search for access to necessary health care. And yet it is no surprise that in many places throughout the United States, getting an abortion can be a monumental challenge. Anti-choice politicians and activists have worked tirelessly to impose needless restrictions on this straightforward medical procedure that, at best, delay it and, at worst, create medical risks and deny women their constitutionally protected right to choose.

Obstacle Course tells the story of abortion in America, capturing a disturbing reality of insurmountable barriers people face when trying to exercise their legal rights to medical services. Authors David S. Cohen and Carole Joffe lay bare the often arduous and unnecessarily burdensome process of terminating a pregnancy: the sabotaged decision-making, clinics in remote locations, insurance bans, harassing protesters, forced ultrasounds and dishonest medical information, arbitrary waiting periods, and unjustified procedure limitations.

Based on patients’ stories as well as interviews with abortion providers and allies from every state in the country, Obstacle Course reveals the unstoppable determination required of women in the pursuit of reproductive autonomy as well as the incredible commitment of abortion providers. Without the efforts of an unheralded army of medical professionals, clinic administrators, counselors, activists, and volunteers, what is a legal right would be meaningless for the almost one million people per year who get abortions. There is a better way—treating abortion like any other form of health care—but the United States is a long way from that ideal.

Posted in Feminist Legal Scholarship, Reproductive Rights | Comments Off

Suffolk Law Seeks Spring 2021 Trusts & Estates Visitor

Posted on February 11, 2020 by Bridget Crawford

Suffolk University Law School in Boston is looking for a Spring 20201 visitor to teach Trusts & Estates. Here is the info:

Suffolk University Law School in Boston invites applications for a position as a Visiting Professor for the Spring semester of the upcoming academic school year (Spring 2021), with the primary responsibility of teaching two sections of the course in Trusts and Estates (one day and one evening section). Applications should be received by February 17 (although applications will be considered on a rolling basis until the position is filled) and must include a letter detailing desire and qualifications to teach Trusts and Estates, as well as a curriculum vitae. Applications should be addressed to Professor Rosanna Cavallaro (rcavalla@suffolk.edu) and uploaded to the Suffolk University website via Jobvite.

Suffolk University is an equal opportunity employer. The University is dedicated to the goal of building a diverse and inclusive faculty and staff who contribute to the robust exchange of ideas on campus, and who are committed to teaching and working in a diverse environment. We strongly encourage applications from groups historically marginalized or underrepresented because of race/color, gender, religious creed, disability, national origin, veteran status or LGBTQ status.

Suffolk University does not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, national origin, ancestry, religious creed, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, age, genetic information, or status as a veteran in admission to, access to, treatment in, or employment in its programs, activities, or employment.

Posted in Academia, Law Teaching | Comments Off

LSU Law Center: Visiting Position Open 2020-2021 for Academic Year, or Fall 2020 or Spring 2021 Semester

Posted on February 4, 2020 by Christine Corcos

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, PAUL M. HEBERT LAW CENTER seeks to hire a visiting professor for the 2020-21 academic year or for Fall 2020 and/or Spring 2021 in the following areas: federal courts, constitutional law, civil procedure, and evidence. Applicants should have a J.D. from an ABA-accredited law school, superior academic credentials, and a commitment to outstanding teaching.
The Paul M. Hebert Law Center of LSU is an Equal Opportunity/Equal Access Employer and is committed to building a culturally diverse faculty. We particularly welcome and encourage applications from female and minority candidates.
The Faculty Appointments Committee will begin reviewing applications on February 7, 2020 and will consider applications thereafter on a rolling basis until the position is filled. Applications should include a letter of application, resume, references, and teaching evaluations (if available) to:

Melissa T. Lonegrass and Christina M. Sautter
Co-Chairs, Faculty Appointments Committee
c/o Pam Hancock (or by email to phancock@lsu.edu)
Paul M. Hebert Law Center
Louisiana State University
1 East Campus Drive
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803-0106

Posted in Academia | Comments Off

CFP: Taxation and Gender Equality, Sept. 14-15, 2020

Posted on January 15, 2020 by Bridget Crawford

Taxation and Gender Equality Conference:

Research Roundtable and Policy Program

September 14-15, 2020

Deadline for Expressions of Interest: March 15, 2020

As the Organizers and members of the Academic Advisory Committee we are pleased to issue this Announcement and Call for Contributions to an event that will be held on September 14 and 15, 2020, in Washington, DC, to explore the interaction between tax law and gender equality. The goal of the Conference, which is sponsored by the Tax Policy Center, the American Tax Policy Institute, the American Bar Foundation, and, subject to the final approval of their boards, the Tax Section of the American Bar Association and the American College of Tax Counsel, is to shine a spotlight on gender issues in taxation and to bring consideration of gender impacts into mainstream discussions surrounding the enactment and administration of tax laws. The intended scope of the Conference is broad, focusing not only on gender issues in U.S. tax law but also on gender issues in the tax laws of other countries; it will consider all taxes, whether income, consumption, transfer, wealth, or other national-level taxes, as well as subnational taxes.

The Conference will begin on Monday, September 14, 2020 at the Washington, DC, offices of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman with a research roundtable featuring principally academic papers. The research roundtable will follow the format typical of academic conferences, providing ample time for conversation among participants.

The second day of the Conference, Tuesday, September 15, 2020, will be held at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, also in Washington, DC. It will consist of a policy-oriented program of panel discussions bringing together academics, practicing attorneys, economists, policy makers, legislators and others to consider issues related to gender and taxation and to consider strategies for incorporation of gender-related concerns into everyday tax policy discourse. At least one panel will feature the recent work undertaken by the National Women’s Law Center exploring the relationship between taxation and gender (see https://nwlc-ciw49tixgw5lbab.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/NWLC-Tax-Executive-Summary-Accessible.pdf).

Continue reading →

Posted in Academia | Comments Off

@PaceLawReview CFP: Reforms in the NY State Criminal Justice System

Posted on January 4, 2020 by Bridget Crawford

The Pace Law Review at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University invites submissions for an interdisciplinary conference on the theme of “Game-changing Reforms in the NYS Criminal Justice System and How to Implement Them” to be held on March 20, 2020, at the NYS Judicial Institute on the campus of the law school.

In the last few years, culminating in the last legislative session, the New York State Legislature, the New York State courts, as well as the government of New York City, have enacted several far-reaching reforms in criminal procedure and related criminal justice issues. These changes include (but are not limited to) the following: raising the age of criminal responsibility to 18 years; comprehensive bail reform; discovery reform; significant changes in the speedy trial statute; the anticipated closing of the Rikers Island detention and correctional facilities; significant changes in the imposition of solitary confinement of state prisoners; the expansion of the use of desk appearance tickets (and the consequent reduction of the number of custodial overnight detentions); expansion of the use of video-recorded police interrogations; expanded use of police body cameras in NYC; proliferation of conviction integrity programs in New York State district attorney’s offices; creation of a Prosecutorial Conduct Commission; and the substantial increase in funding of public defender offices statewide as part of the Hurrell-Harring case settlement. Each of these reforms deserves considered analysis and debate.

This symposium will provide a forum for policymakers, jurists, academics, criminal law practitioners (on both the prosecution and defense side), students, and concerned citizens to engage in a thorough discussion of criminal justice reform. These changes share some common themes—an overall trend towards decarceration, increased use of modern technology in street policing, and increased emphasis on the prosecutorial obligation to share information, accelerate the process, avoid misconduct and prevent or correct wrongful convictions.

These changes in New York State reflect national trends in favor of bail and discovery reform, decarceration, and increased concern about wrongful convictions. They also reflect changes in the modern prosecutor’s role and a 21st century model of organized policing. Fixing a close gaze on New York’s and upstate and downstate counties will provide insight for our national discussion about how we should create and maintain a just criminal process.

New York is one of the largest states in the nation and has an extensive criminal justice system. Significant changes in the law, like those listed above, will have significant effects in other states as well. The far-reaching impact of these reforms might include changes in policy, distribution of resources, rethinking what we mean by fairness and due process in criminal matters, and the proper balance between social control and individual liberty—all are implicated in these reforms. Our federal system contemplates the various states as “laboratories” of justice. With these reforms, New York once again is coming to the forefront in that role. A Pace Law Review symposium issue containing excellent and insightful scholarship on matters of criminal justice policy, procedure, practice, and jurisprudence would be a valuable resource both locally and nationally.

The Pace Law Review and the Pace Criminal Justice Institute invite you to be a part of that discussion.

We welcome full-length traditional law review articles with a maximum of 65 pages, as well as shorter essays and commentaries with a minimum of 10 pages. Authors will be selected based on brief abstracts of their articles, essays, or commentaries. We are looking for different perspectives on the goals and challenges of implementing the historic criminal justice reforms throughout New York State.

To submit, please send:

Name, title, and professional affiliation
Curriculum vitae/resume
Contact details, including phone number and email address
A two to three-page abstract summarizing your article or essay and indicating the expected page length of your paper.

Please submit your abstract for consideration to: Managing Editor Mellis Bakir at: mbakir@law.pace.edu.

Submission Deadlines

Abstract Deadline: February 3, 2020

Selection Notification Date: February 14, 2020

Article/Essay Deadline: TBD

If you have any questions about this call for papers, please contact Mellis Bakir at: mbakir@law.pace.edu or Carol Barry (Director of the Pace Criminal Justice Institute) at: cbarry@law.pace.edu.

Posted in Call for Papers or Participation, Criminal Law | Comments Off

@NWULRev Online Symposium on “The Common Law Inside the Female Body” by @BernsteinAnita

Posted on December 20, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

The Northwestern University Law Review Online has published a symposium issue devoted to Anita Bernstein’s book, The Common Law Inside the Female Body (Cambridge University Press 2019), including a response by Professor Bernstein. Here is the publisher’s description of the book:

In The Common Law Inside the Female Body, Anita Bernstein explains why lawyers seeking gender progress from primary legal materials should start with the common law. Despite its reputation for supporting conservatism and inequality, today’s common law shares important commitments with feminism, namely in precepts and doctrines that strengthen the freedom of individuals and from there the struggle against the subjugation of women. By re-invigorating both the common law – with a focus on crimes, contracts, torts, and property – and feminist jurisprudence, this highly original work anticipates a vital future for a pair of venerable jurisprudential traditions. It should be read by anyone interested in understanding how the common law delivers an extraordinary degree of liberty and security to all persons – women included.

Here are the essays in the symposium line-up:

Bridget J. Crawford, The Common Law as Silver Slippers
David S. Cohen, The Promise and Peril of a Common Law Right to Abortion
Joanna L. Grossman, Women are (Allegedly) People, Too
Cyra Akila Choudhury, The Common Law as a Terrain of Feminist Struggle
Margaret Chon, Intellectual Property Infringement and the Right to Say No
Maritza I. Reyes, The Female Body in the Workplace: Judges and the Common Law
Teri A. McMurtry-Chubb, In Search of the Common Law Inside the Black Female Body
Anita Bernstein, Negative Liberty Meets Positive Social Change

Posted in Feminist Legal Scholarship, Recommended Books | Comments Off

Muriel Gold Senior Visiting Professorship at McGill University @mcgillu

Posted on December 16, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

MURIEL GOLD SENIOR VISITING PROFESSORSHIP

Institute for Gender, Sexuality and Feminist Studies

McGill University

2020-2021

The Institute for Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies (IGSF) at McGill University, Montreal, Canada invites applications for the position of Muriel Gold Visiting Professor. This position is open to professors who wish to spend one or two academic terms in a university environment in order to carry out research on gender, sexuality or feminist studies. The Institute offers work space and support, an ongoing seminar program, contact with other professors within McGill and in neighbouring universities – all this located at the centre of a stimulating, bilingual, urban environment.

The Visiting Professor position is ideal for faculty with research leave funding, a portable research fellowship, or sabbatical. Preference will be given to professors who already hold faculty positions. Research funding in the amount of $5,000 for the Muriel Gold Senior Visiting Professor is available from the IGSF. Visiting professors also participate in our Esquisses works in progress talk series, and have an opportunity to present and discuss their research with an engaged and enthusiastic research community.

If interested, please send a one page proposal via email with the header “Muriel Gold Visiting Professorship,” describing the research that would be undertaken while in residence as a Visiting Professor, a copy or link to a recent publication, an up-to-date curriculum vitae and an indication of what period you would like for your tenure as IGSF Visiting Professor to:

Miranda Hickman, Acting Director

Institute for Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies (IGSF)

3487 Peel Street, 2nd floor

Montreal, QC H3A 1W7

e-mail: miranda.hickman@mcgill.ca<mailto:miranda.hickman@mcgill.ca>

While we may be able to provide administrative advice on the following matters, we ask that IGSF visiting professors assume full responsibility on matters relating to visa applications, health insurance, housing and living expenses. Please note in particular that Canada does not pay for hospital or medical services for visitors. We ask all visiting professors to ensure to have health insurance to cover any medical costs for the duration of your visit to Canada.

APPLICATION CLOSING DATE: January 15, 2020 Please submit your application and all documents electronically.

Posted in Fellowships and Funding Opportunities | Comments Off

Feminist Scholarship in “Made At NYPL” Exhibit @nypl

Posted on December 16, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

I recently visited the New York Public Library to see the exhibit Made at NYPL, a celebration of “a small by representative sample of original works that were produced using the Library’s unique and extensive resources.” Among the featured works are two that likely are familiar to law profs:

Annette Gordon-Reed & Peter S. Onuf, “Most Blessed of the Patriarchs”: Thomas Jefferson and the Empire of Imagination (2016)
Barbara Goldsmith, Other Powers: The Age of Suffrage, Spiritualism, and the Scandalous Victoria Woodhull (1999)
Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (1963)

Two excerpts from Friedan’s book capture how important the library was (is) to writers:

Without that superb institution, the Frederick Lewis Allen Room of the New York Public Library and its provision to a writer of quiet work space and continuous access to research sources, this particular mother of three might never have started a book, much less finished it.

I sat for many days in the New York Public Library, going back through bound volumes of American women’s magazines for the last twenty years. I found a change in the image of the American woman, and in the boundaries of the woman’s world, as sharp and puzzling as the changes revealed in cores of ocean sediment.

It’s an informative exhibit, for anyone who lives in the city or happens to be passing through. More info is available here.

Posted in Feminism and Culture, Feminist Legal History, Feminist Legal Scholarship | Comments Off

Utah Poised to Repeal #Tampon Tax

Posted on December 13, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

Yesterday the Utah legislature passed a bill that will exempt from menstrual products (tampons, pads, etc.) from state sales tax. Read more here.

Posted in Women and Economics, Women's Health | Comments Off

Johnson, Crawford & Waldman on “Title IX and Menstruation”

Posted on December 13, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

Margaret Johnson (Baltimore), Emily Waldman (Pace) and I have posted to SSRN our article Title IX and Menstruation, forthcoming next year in the Harvard J.L. & Gender. Here is the abstract:

“Oh no. Could I borrow a tampon or pad?” These (or similar) words are familiar to almost everyone who has ever had a period. Even for adults, menstruation can at times be a challenge. For some schoolchildren, it can feel like an insurmountable obstacle to receiving an education. Students are subject to constant observation by classmates and teachers; they may not have autonomous access to a bathroom during the school day; or they may not be able to afford menstrual products. As a result, a menstruating student may find it difficult to concentrate in school or even attend school at all, depending on the circumstances. This Article explores the intersection of menstruation and education to uncover the impediments faced by girls and other students who menstruate. Students may experience menstruation-related peer harassment, restrictive school policies, a lack of access to menstrual products, and inadequate menstruation-related education. Because menstruation is uniquely associated with female biology, a school’s failure to address the needs of menstruating students amounts to a denial of educational opportunities on the basis of sex under Title IX.

In recent years, students themselves have played notable roles in successful efforts to cause schools to provide free pads or tampons to students. Currently most states do not require schools to do so. Even in states where schools have a legal obligation to provide menstrual products to students, availability is only one part of a larger problem. Unless students can access bathroom facilities in response to their biological needs, and do so without shame, stigma or restriction, students may risk bleeding during class, failing to change tampons or pads as medically recommended, or even leaving (or skipping) school. This Article argues that pursuant to Title IX, schools should provide students with an education free of unnecessary anxiety about the natural biological process of menstruation. This freedom from anxiety is a necessary precondition for girls, boys, women, men and people of all genders to have meaningful opportunities to fully participate in all aspects of public life.

The full article is available here. Our article focuses mostly on education in grades 3 through 12, but the arguments are equally applicable to higher education contexts, too.

Posted in Feminism and Culture, Feminist Legal Scholarship, Primary and Secondary Education, Women's Health | Comments Off

Research Travel Grants for Susan Bulkeley Butler Women’s Archives @Purdue Archives

Posted on December 13, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

From the Purdue University Archives:

The Susan Bulkeley Butler Women’s Archives at the Purdue University Archives announces Research Travel Grants for those planning to travel in order to use materials at the Purdue Archives in 2020. Grants of up to $2,000 will be awarded to individual scholars.

The Women’s Archives collects, preserves, and makes available for research original and rare materials that capture the often overlooked and under-represented stories of women and their communities in Purdue and Indiana’s past. Our collections include papers, photographs, audio-visual materials, digital media, rare books, and select artifacts documenting women faculty, staff, and students at Purdue University; organizations and programs at Purdue that support women; and significant women and women’s organizations in Indiana.

Notable collections include those documenting the history of the Deans of Women at Purdue; collections on women’s issues such as the Sisters for Health Education (S.H.E.) records and the Helen B. Schleman papers; the Paulina T. Merritt papers on the Indiana Women’s Suffrage Movement; and the personal papers of industrial engineers Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, among many others.

For descriptions of our collections, see Women’s Archives here.

For information about eligibility, criteria, and the application process, see Research and Travel Grants here.

The deadline for applications is January 17, 2020.

Posted in Fellowships and Funding Opportunities, Feminist Legal Scholarship | Comments Off

Carbado & Harris on “Anti-Essentialism, Intersectionality, and Dominance Theory”

Posted on December 11, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

In June, 2019, Devon Carbado (UCLA) and Cheryl Harris (UCLA) published an important essay, Intersectionality at 30: Mapping the Margins of Anti-Essentialism, Intersectionality, and Dominance Theory, 132 Harv. L. Rev. 2193 (2019). It provides an excellent and nuanced understanding of three important intellectual developments in feminist legal theory in the last 30 years. It should be required reading for anyone who teaches or studies in the field. Here are Carbado and Harris’ three main arguments:

This Essay advances three core claims. First, intersectionality is often erroneously conflated with anti-essentialism and thus many readers erroneously perceive a strong opposition between intersectionality and dominance theory on the view that dominance theory is essentialist and that intersectionality is not. In the context of disaggregating intersectionality from anti-essentialism, we contest the view that feminism and critical theory must always avoid essentialism to achieve normative commitments to social transformation. Second, we argue that scholars have largely overlooked the fact that dominance theory and intersectionality share a critique of conceptions of equality structured around sameness and difference. Third, we contend that while there is an affiliation between dominance theory and intersectionality, there is also at least some tension between their respective framings of race and gender.

The full essay is available here.

Posted in Academia | Comments Off

Sex Inequality in the U.S. and French #Tax Laws

Posted on December 6, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

Mary Roche Waller (Michigan JD 2017) has published Sex Inequality in the United States and French Income Tax Filing Systems, 73 Tax Lawyer 207 (2019). Here is the abstract:

This Article explains and compares the joint and family income taxation structures in the U.S. and France, respectively, and discusses how these structures contribute to sex inequality. The Article also addresses the rationales for a joint or family structure and offers three possible approaches for reducing the sex inequality in the tax systems in the U.S. and France, including a secondary earner deduction, increased child-care subsidies or deductions, or a switch to an individual taxation structure. The Article concludes that the U.S. and France could better reach sex equality goals by moving to an individual filing system.

The full article is available on the ABA website here (paywall for now; sorry).

Posted in Feminism and Families, Sisters In Other Nations, Women and Economics | Comments Off

Constitutional Court of Colombia Invalidates Tax on Menstrual Hygiene Products, Requires Bogotá to Provide Supplies for Homeless Women

Posted on December 5, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

Mónica Arango Olaya (DPhil Student, Oxford) has a fantastic write-up of two recent decisions by the Colombian Constitutional Court:

In late 2018, the Court adopted Decision C-117 of 2018, holding that a provision imposing 5% VAT tax on tampons and sanitary pads violated women´s rights to equality, autonomy, and access to a minimum core standard of life. The petitioners had argued that the tax did not consider women’s economic ability to access essential goods that only they were obliged to use (given that there were no comparable alternative products in the market).

The Court recognized that there was a high margin of discretion for the legislature in tax law. Nonetheless, it could not infringe the principles of reasonableness and non-discrimination. The Court also affirmed that the tax violated the principle of “no taxation without representation”, as Congress never discussed why tampons and sanitary pads should be taxed, despite being irreplaceable goods used only by women. More importantly, it underscored two points. First, women´s ability to appear in and navigate public spaces, and participate in all the dimensions of public life, is necessarily contingent on access to sanitary pads and tampons. While the Court acknowledged the existence of alternatives like the cup and menstrual underwear, it also found that these options were effectively inaccessible for rural women, and indeed for the majority of women, who lived on the minimum wage. Effective access was thus held to be interrelated with the protection of other rights, such as the rights to health, education, autonomy and dignity. * **

More recently, building upon the previous case, the Court affirmed in Decision T-398 of 2019 that the city of Bogota had violated the rights to dignity, autonomy as well as the sexual and reproductive rights of a woman living on the streets, by not including in their policies the provision of sanitary pads. The Court found that women in vulnerable positions, with no knowledge of menstrual hygiene, had to look through trash cans to find products to manage their flow. This was a breach of the State´s positive duties to provide minimum goods for the most vulnerable.

The full post is here at the Oxford Human Rights Hub.

Posted in Sisters In Other Nations, Women and Economics, Women's Health | Comments Off

Goldblatt & Steele on “Inequality Related to Menstruation”

Posted on December 1, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

Beth Goldblatt (University of Technology Sydney) and Linda Steele (University of Technology Sydney) have published a new article, Bloody Unfair: Inequality Related to Menstruation – Considering the Role of Discrimination Law, 41 Sydney L. Rev. 293 (2019):

Drawing on growing social awareness, activism and scholarship, this article examines menstruation as an equality issue and the implications for discrimination law in Australia. It discusses the complex nature of inequality that arises in relation to menstruation. It also considers intersectional discrimination (when a combination of attributes generates a new form of discrimination) that occurs in relation to menstruation facing different groups: women and girls with disabilities, incarcerated women, and transgender, gender-diverse and intersex people. The article considers how some forms of inequality related to menstruation might be addressed through discrimination law (workplace adjustments and provision of menstrual products in carceral settings) and points to limitations of discrimination law or its application, such as in relation to sterilisation of women and girls with disabilities and strip searching of incarcerated women. It concludes that Australian discrimination law can only have a limited impact in addressing menstrual inequality. This is because: (a) the structure of the law is attribute-based and thus cannot address the complex intersections of sex and other attributes; (b) it cannot address structural inequality; and (c) it cannot adequately contend with embodied and abjected legal subjects. These conclusions have radical implications beyond menstruation inequality in contributing to broader discussions of how law can re-imagine gender difference and advance equality.

The full article is available here.

Posted in Sexual Harassment, Sisters In Other Nations, Women and Economics, Women's Health | Comments Off

Creighton Law Seeks Tenured or Tenure-Track Director of Clinical Programs

Posted on November 26, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

From colleagues at Creighton:

Creighton University School of Law is seeking qualified applicants for the position of Director of Clinical Programs. This position is tenured or tenure eligible. Creighton University is a Jesuit university, and as such is committed to the training of students in service to others, and recognizes the importance of family life, the inalienable worth of each individual and values ethnic and cultural diversity as core values. In keeping with Creighton’s Ignatian tradition of inclusivity and compassion, we seek a caring, hospitable environment for everyone, regardless of age, culture, faith, ethnicity, immigrant status, race, gender, sexual orientation, language, physical appearance, physical ability or social class.

Interviews begin by January 20, 2020.

For full details, and to make an application, see here.

Posted in Chutes and Ladders | Comments Off

Schlessinger Library @RadInstitute Grants

Posted on November 8, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

The Schlesinger Library on the History of Women in America has a research grant program. The summer grant deadline is November 15, 2019. There are term-time grants, too. Check out the website for more info here.

Posted in Fellowships and Funding Opportunities | Comments Off

@UofELawSchool Edinburgh Appoints Laura Macgregor Chair of Scots Law – First Woman to Hold Same Chair Hume Did

Posted on November 8, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

From The Journal of the Law Society of Scotland:

Professor Laura Macgregor has been appointed to the Chair of Scots Law at Edinburgh Law School.

The chair is the second oldest in Edinburgh Law School. Established in 1722, with Alexander Bayne its first incumbent, it has been held by legal luminaries such as John Erskine, David Hume, George Joseph Bell, Sir John Rankine and, most recently, Kenneth Reid. In the 297 years since its creation, Professor Macgregor will be the first woman to hold it.

Professor Macgregor spent several years as a practising solicitor with two Edinburgh law firms, before beginning her academic career at the University of Glasgow in 1997. She joined the Edinburgh Law School in 2002. Her interests lie in the field of commercial law, and her research considers Scots law in its comparative context, both European and global. She is the author of The Law of Agency in Scotland (2013), published in the Scottish Universities Law Institute series. Currently undertaking research into the law of partnership, her recent article, “Partnerships and Legal Personality: Cautionary Tales from Scotland” will be published in 2020 in the Journal of Corporate Law Studies.

On the subject of her appointment, Professor Macgregor said: “I am absolutely delighted to be appointed to this historic and important chair within Edinburgh Law School. It is a challenging time to take on this role, with events such as Brexit lying over the horizon. Supported by my excellent colleagues in private law, I am confident that we can meet such challenges, ultimately achieving our aim of creating a diverse, inclusive and welcoming place to study.”

Professor Macgregor will take up her new role from 1 July 2020.

Posted in Firsts | Comments Off

@CarolineMCorbin on “The Supreme Court’s Facilitation of White Christian Nationalism”

Posted on November 2, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

Caroline Mala Corbin (Miami) has posted to SSRN her article The Supreme Court’s Facilitation of White Christian Nationalism (Alabama Law Review, forthcoming). Here is the abstract:

Doug Jager, a band student of Native American ancestry, complained about the Christian prayers at his Georgia public school’s football games. Rather than address his concerns, the school lectured him on Christianity and proposed an alternative that appeared neutral yet would have still resulted in Christian prayers. In striking down the school’s proposal, Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr. understood some of the ramifications of state-sponsored Christianity.

Despite Supreme Court rulings limiting Christian invocations at public school events, government-sponsored Christian prayers and Christian symbols remain plentiful and constitutional in the United States. This proliferation of government-sponsored Christianity around the country both reflects and strengthens Christian nationalism.

Christian nationalism maintains that the United States is and should be a Christian nation, and Christian nationalism’s defining characteristic is the belief that religious identity and national identity overlap completely. Christian nationalism necessarily implies a hierarchy based on religion, with Christian insiders who are true Americans and non-Christian outsiders who are not. Moreover, studies show that those with strong identification with Christian nationalism have more hostile attitudes towards out-groups, religious and otherwise. That hostility paves the way for hostile public policy. Consequently, Christian nationalism does not simply lead to symbolic exclusion from the community and nation, it may lead to actual exclusion.

Thus, as the sociological evidence establishes, the harm of government-sponsored Christianity is not just offense, but discriminatory attitudes and discriminatory policies. The insight embedded in Establishment Clause doctrine that the government should not favor one religion over others is borne out by contemporary social science. As a result, instead of eviscerating separation of church and state, it ought to be recognized as more important than ever.

The full article is available here.

Posted in Feminism and Religion, Feminist Legal Scholarship | Comments Off

80% of Teens Report Missing Class Time or Knowing Someone Who Has Missed Class Time Because of Lack of Access to Menstrual Hygiene Products

Posted on October 27, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

The results of a Harris Insights & Analytics poll of 1000 teens ages 13-19, sponsored by Thinx and PERIOD, are here. Some of the salient findings:

Two-thirds of teens have felt stress due to lack of access to period products.

20% (1 in 5 teens) have struggled to afford period products or were not able to purchase them at all.

61% have worn a tampon or pad for more than 4 hours because they did not have enough access to period products (puts them at risk of infection and TSS).

84% (more than 4 in 5 teens) have either missed class time or know someone who missed class time because they did not have access to period products.

25% (1 in 4 teens) have missed class because of lack of access to period products.

83% (more than 4 in 5 teens) think lack of access to period products is an issue that is not talked about enough.

More than 4 in 5 teens have either missed class time or know a classmate who missed class time because they did not have access to period products.

Read the full report here.

Posted in Primary and Secondary Education, Women and Economics, Women's Health | Comments Off

Period Poverty in the U.S.

Posted on October 25, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

Amarica Rafanelli at Direct Relief hosted a podcast on the topic here.

Here’s a summary of the program, which features Jennifer Weiss-Wolf of Period Equity:

Pads and tampons are a simple necessity, yet women across America are going without them. The cost of these products make them inaccessible for many low-income women struggling to make ends meet. These women often forgo menstrual hygiene products in order to afford for other basic necessities. Without tampons or pads, women resort to using rags, toilet paper, or even adult diapers. The problem has garnered national attention and stoked advocacy campaigns across the United States. While activists work to pass policies that would increase women’s access to period products, women on the margins continue to struggle with the problem on a monthly basis.

Posted in Women and Economics, Women's Health | Comments Off

UConn Dean’s Search

Posted on October 21, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

The University of Connecticut has announced the opening of the search for the next Dean of the School of Law. The official announcement — together with information about applications and nominations as well as links to the position description — can be found here.

Posted in Academia, Chutes and Ladders | Comments Off

Joshi on “Affirmative Action as Transitional Justice”

Posted on October 20, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

Yuvraj Joshi (doctoral candidate, Yale Law School) has posted to SSRN his article Affirmative Action as Transitional Justice, 2020 Wisc. L. Rev. (forthcoming). Here is the abstract:

What role does affirmative action play in transitioning toward a more just society? The two literatures best equipped to answer this question — transitional justice and affirmative action — have neglected both the question and one another. Transitional justice scholars have focused on a limited set of measures (such as truth commissions and criminal prosecutions) and overlooked the role of affirmative action in facilitating transition. At the same time, affirmative action scholars have neglected the ways affirmative action may be part of a larger transitional justice project. Bringing these literatures into conversation for the first time, this Article shows how integrating affirmative action and transitional justice can advance our understanding of both practices. Affirmative action can bring attention to structural inequalities in transitional societies and help delineate the boundaries of transitional justice. In so doing, affirmative action can bridge a divide between the field of transitional justice and the phenomenon of societal transition that it seeks to understand and facilitate. Transitional justice, on the other hand, can elucidate how the period of transition informs affirmative action’s features and functions; it can also illuminate affirmative action’s strengths and shortcomings in bringing about a more just society. Affirmative action should therefore be added to the transitional justice ‘toolkit’ and anchored in transitional justice concepts and debates.

Read the full article here.

Posted in Feminist Legal Scholarship | Comments Off

Same-Sex Voting and Phallocentric Legislation—Toward Next Era Democracy?

Posted on October 7, 2019 by admin

The present battle over reproductive rights is an attempted coup by conservatives, who see an opportune moment. Ushered in by the election of Donald Trump as well as the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, some see it as an opportunity to overturn the right to abortion. It is peculiar that such a case could be made under the leadership of Trump, whose own life is a poster-child for careless, wanton, and assaultive attitudes toward sex. It is strange that the move to tighten abortion comes from a party whose leader has led a playboy life, preying on women, paying to silence women, and having all sorts of illicit affairs during and in-between his three marriages. Even if Trump embodies exactly why the option of abortion should be a woman’s choice, it is obvious that Republicans believe that the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court signals an opportunity.

That Kavanaugh, himself accused of sexual assault and other sexual misconduct, should be the vote that turns the tide is even more remarkable. If Trump’s destructive masculinity has so far showed how a man’s carelessness can easily turn into a woman’s pregnancy, Kavanaugh showed a more pernicious side. He has been accused of sexual assault and misconduct by different women, which is also a reminder of the most unfortunate ways that pregnancies can occur—through the use of force or the threat of force by a man. That Kavanaugh’s vote may become the lynchpin for abolishing abortion is the ultimate irony, especially were it to force a woman to carry a child that was the product of sexual assault

The different states moving to reverse reproductive rights have Trump and Kavanaugh to thank for helping engineer the movement. The fact that they are the igniters of this movement is like a warped episode of A Handmaid’s Tale. Under such men and the party that supports them, women find themselves under a legal assault. Such an attack triggers the need to devise new political means of reimagining democracy and pushing back. Two future pathways of resistance may be to advocate for same-sex voting and counter-legislation. It might be time to reimagine voting and start pressing for laws that govern a man’s privates as rigidly as the laws that govern a woman’s womb.

Although it may seem politically naïve to suggest it, a person’s reproductive rights might be best determined along sex lines. It is not far-fetched to allot women as the only class of voters allowed to vote on issues that govern reproductive law and their own body. Likewise, it is already taken for granted that a man should be able to decide these issues, whether he wants to have children, when he does, and with whom. None of these should be hoisted upon him by the state. The same should hold true for women, even though their rights are more precarious since they operate against a history of oppression and inequality, where once upon a time they held the status of being property. Today, women still struggle with inequities and far less political power than their counterparts. It is a stark lesson in gender dominance that men should wield such decisionmaking over female bodies, which makes the current democratic model simply a perpetuation of injustice. Same-sex voting would at least take the male thumb off the scales so that women alone could be the arbiters of any policy that pertains to their body, and the pain and suffering that come with it.

Some might scoff at the idea of same-sex voting, but it is not outlandish to think that there are some issues for which women-only should be allowed to vote. An obvious argument in favor of this idea is the fact that women bear unique burdens and pains of being women, including pregnancy and childbirth. So, the very painful issues at stake are completely unknown to men. Despite this gap, as it stands, men are flexing their power to sentence women to pregnancy, which in some cases might be construed as a sentence of torture. Compared to a system that would let women decide on laws that impact their own bodies and the pain and suffering they must endure, current legislative efforts bear an heir of barbarism. To some, same-sex voting might seem undemocratic, but historical circumstances of this country have created glass ceiling after ceiling for women, while current inequalities persist. Same sex voting would be a step toward a more egalitarian political playing field in which women have a genuine say in what happens to their body.

This move would also further democracy in the sense that it would lead to more equitable and acceptable political outcomes for women. For example, even if a majority of women enacted laws similar to the anti-abortion efforts currently underway, it would likely lead to more women accepting the result compared to today’s system, where a man’s opinion carries the heaviest weight. Today, as in years of old, men are the primary creators of these laws and they are still largely the most important voters. Male dominance of American culture and its legal systems gives males the political upper-hand now and in future efforts to regulate women’s bodies. Congress may be starting to open up to women members, but it and other government institutions still live in the shadows of inequality. Hence, when it comes to decisions about the female body or sexual reproduction, allowing same-sex voting would be a push toward expanding the one-size-fits-all model of voting into one that is more tailored to the lived experiences of women. They are the ones who must experience these unique physical realities, from menstruation and childbirth all the way to menopause.

Whether same-sex voting or other such voting possibilities take root, there is no doubt that phallocentric legislation is being used as a counter-strategy by some. On social media there has been robust discussion on this point, including what it would look like if similar laws were passed for men. Memes have ruminated on mandatory male vasectomies, banning vasectomies, and other restrictions, including getting permission from others before being allowed the procedure. Others have pointed out that over a nine-month period, a man can cause a number of pregnancies, whereas a woman can only have a single pregnancy. Taken wholly, the commentary underscores that the greatest threat of unwanted pregnancies necessarily comes from males.

A more concrete illustration comes from the state of Georgia, where one lawmaker responded to a controversial abortion law by drafting a “testicular bill of rights.” The plan would ban vasectomies and require men to seek permission from their partners before getting a Viagra prescription. Unabashed in its attempt to mirror the type of punitive measures laid out in the abortion law, the proposed law would go even further and make the use of a condom an “aggravated assault” under the criminal law, require DNA testing of a fetus when a woman is 6 weeks to determine the father for child support purposes, in addition to a 24-hour waiting period to purchase pornography or sex toys.

Both counter-legislation and same-sex voting may seem like the bud of a joke, yet one might only imagine if such a trend were to arise, perhaps supported by the spirit of the #MeToo movement. What if male and female bodily and reproductive rights were policed equally such that men patrolled their own bodies, and women did the same for themselves? Such a move would result in a true shift of power since men have been the sole legal guardians of the American legal system for most of the country’s existence and have created nearly all the laws that govern women’s sex and reproductive rights. Perhaps it is time to relinquish this power to whom it rightfully belongs.

Making men feel regulative burdens similar to women, in addition to giving women the exclusive vote over women’s issues, will work to infuse more democracy into the system. To be sure, how we vote is not etched in stone, and there is obviously more than one way to vote. To say that there is only one way is itself not very democratic; it also betrays history, since for a long time, there was only one-sex voting, men. But not all men—only wealthy white men were allowed to vote. To say that voting arrangements cannot be reconfigured is disingenuous since American voting and procedures are always a work in progress. The same holds for the notion of phallocentric legislation. It represents a dramatic way to counter the assault on female bodies by demonstrating why the regulation of male bodies is an even more efficient solution to stemming unwanted pregnancies.

-SpearIt

Posted in Feminism and Politics | Comments Off

CFP – Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Corporate Law

Posted on September 30, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

DEADLINE: Friday November 1, 2019

The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project seeks contributors of rewritten judicial opinions and private contracts, and commentaries on rewritten opinions and contracts, for an edited collection tentatively titled Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Corporate Law. This edited volume is part of a collaboration 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. Cambridge University Press has approved a series of Feminist Judgments books. In 2017, Cambridge University Press published the tax volume titled Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Tax Opinions. Other volumes in the pipeline include rewritten opinions in the areas of reproductive justice, family law, torts, employment discrimination, trusts and estates, health law, and property law. More information about the project can be found here.

Corporate law volume editors are Anne Choike, Usha R. Rodrigues and Kelli Alces Williams. The corporate law volume’s advisory panel is comprised of Alina Ball; Lisa Fairfax; Theresa Gabaldon; Joan MacLeod Heminway; Kristin Johnson; Elizabeth Pollman; Poonam Puri; Darren Rosenblum; Cindy Schipani; Kellye Testy; Cheryl Wade; and Cindy Williams.

With the guidance of the advisory panel, the editors have selected cases that have not appeared in other Feminist Judgments volumes, doctrinally significant cases, and cases that raise issues of particular salience to women’s lives. This volume also seeks to include a rewritten “contract,” given corporate law’s emphasis upon default law and the precedent-setting power of privately negotiated arrangements. Potential authors are welcome to suggest other opinions or contracts that they would like to address, but the overall number of cases and contracts finally included in the volume must remain limited.

Interested prospective contributors should submit a proposal to either: 1) rewrite an opinion or contract (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, dissents, or private contracts.

Continue reading →

Posted in Call for Papers or Participation | Comments Off

Cook on “Johnny Appleseed: Citizenship Transmission Laws and a White Heteropatriarchal Property Right in Philandering, Sexual Exploitation, and Rape (the “Whp”) or Johnny and the Whp”

Posted on September 26, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

Blanche Bong Cook (Kentucky) has posted to SSRN her article, “Johnny Appleseed: Citizenship Transmission Laws and a White Heteropatriarchal Property Right in Philandering, Sexual Exploitation, and Rape (the “Whp”) or Johnny and the Whp, 31 Yale J. L. & Feminism 57 (2019). Here is the abstract:

Title 8, United States Code, Section 1409—one of this country’s citizenship transmission laws—creates a white heteropatriarchal property right in philandering, sexual exploitation, and rape (the “WHP”). Section 1409 governs the transmission of citizenship from United States citizens to their children, where the child is born abroad, outside of marriage, and one parent is a citizen and the other is not. Section 1409, however, draws a distinct gender distinction between women and men: An unwed female American citizen who births a child outside the United States, fathered by a foreign man, automatically transmits citizenship to her child. An unwed male American citizen, by contrast, who fathers a child abroad with a foreign woman has the distinctly male prerogative to either grant or deny citizenship to his foreign-born nonmarital child at his leisure.

The full article is available here.

Posted in Feminism and Families, Feminist Legal Scholarship, Immigration | Comments Off

Hearing Women: Reflections on the Anniversary of Christine Blasey Ford’s Testimony

Posted on September 26, 2019 by admin

by Stephanie M. Wildman

September 27 marks the anniversary of a skirmish that ranks in the pantheon of modern civilian conflicts over what kind of society America will be. Many believed Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony one year ago about sexual assault she had endured at the hands of then-Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Her composed, measured statement during the confirmation hearing exemplified bravery in the face of adversity.

The Senate and the nation’s response to her testimony underscored the high stakes in the ongoing ideological conflict about who we are as a nation, beyond the obvious prize of a Supreme Court seat.

The hearing also provided an opportunity to consider race and American racial dynamics which society too often overlooks in the context of whiteness. In fact, the specter of race, America’s persistent issue, hovered above the proceedings, the unspoken ghost in the room. Race remains present even when ignored.

In 1991, another confirmation hearing for now Justice Clarence Thomas, in which Anita Hill testified about sexual harassment she had experienced, split the nation. Race pervaded the Ford-Kavanaugh hearings in ways different from its presence when Professor Anita Hill testified. In the Hill-Thomas hearings commentators did not ignore race, perhaps because both participants are Black. Yet whites have a race, too, and whiteness impacted society’s views of Professor Blasey Ford and Justice Kavanaugh.

During his hearing, Justice Thomas highlighted his race as a black man, claiming the proceedings amounted to a high-tech lynching. Justice Thomas essentially erased Professor Hill as a black woman, turning sexual harassment into a white woman’s issue. Ironically, black women have been at the forefront of combatting sexual harassment in court cases, just as Professor Hill did by coming forward.

Justice Kavanaugh, in contrast during his hearing, exercised white racial privilege by conducting himself in a manner unthinkable for a Black man. While Dr. Ford epitomized civility, Justice Kavanaugh, in his testimony, exhibited intense anger toward the proceedings and many individuals. Memorably, he engaged in an interchange with Senator Amy Klobuchar that was so disrespectful that he returned from a break and apologized for his outburst.

Justice Kavanaugh exhibited a white, male, power complaint, as he cast himself as a victim, free to rant away. Picture a black judicial candidate responding as Justice Kavanaugh did. Might the hypothetical black candidate have appeared unreasonable to those who found Justice Kavanaugh’s behavior acceptable? What if Dr. Ford had been loud and complaining? Would she have been seen as “too aggressive” and not credible by those who believed her?

Many observers defending Justice Kavanaugh urged that a grown man should not be judged harshly based on his behavior as a youth, even if part of the story were true. This attitude toward the criminal justice system highlights another racialized aspect of the hearings. Black and Latino youth find themselves in a school to prison pipeline, beginning with minor offenses or school suspensions. Even these minor offenses tarnish their adult records, making educational attainment and job advancement impossible. Where are their defenders, saying these men should not be judged by the misdemeanors perpetrated in their youth? Society judges youthful indiscretion through the lens of race, with harsher penalties to black and brown children. Imagine Justice Kavanaugh as a Black youth.

In these two transfixing political moments patriotic women subjected themselves to national scrutiny, putting their sense of duty before their personal comfort. But the same result, confirmation of the men accused, ensued, giving a message to women that we do not really matter

An expanded version of these ideas appear in Hearing Women: From Professor Hill to Dr. Ford, 33 Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development __ ( forthcoming 2019).

Posted in Courts and the Judiciary, Race and Racism, Sexual Harassment | Comments Off

Allen, Jackson & Harris on “The ‘Pink Ghetto’ Pipeline

Posted on September 25, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

Renée Nicole Allen (St. John’s), Alicia Jackson (FAMU), and DeShun Harris (Memphis) have posted to SSRN their article, The ‘Pink Ghetto’ Pipeline: Challenges and Opportunities for Women in Legal Education, U. Detroit Mercy L. Rev. (forthcoming 2019). Here is the abstract:

The demographics of law schools are changing and women make up the majority of law students. Yet, the demographics of many law faculties do not reflect these changing demographics with more men occupying faculty seats. In legal education, women predominately occupy skills positions, including legal writing, clinic, academic success, bar preparation, or library. According to a 2010 Association of American Law Schools survey, the percentage of female lecturers and instructors is so high that those positions are stereotypically female. The term coined for positions typically held by women is “pink ghetto.” According to the Department of Labor, pink-collar-worker describes jobs and career areas historically considered “women’s work,” and included on the list is teaching. However, in legal education, tenured and higher-ranked positions are held primarily by men, while women often enter legal education through non-tenured and non-faculty skills-based teaching pipelines. In a number of these positions, women experience challenges like poor pay, heavy workloads, and lower status such as by contract, nontenure, or at will. While many may view this as a challenge, looking at these positions solely as a “pink ghetto” diminishes the many contributions women have made to legal education through the skills faculty pipelines. Conversely, we miss the opportunity to examine how legal education has changed and how women have accepted the challenge of being on the front line of educating this new generation of learners while enthusiastically adopting the American Bar Association’s new standards for assessment and student learning. There is an opportunity for women to excel in these positions if we provide them with allies who champion for equal status and provide the requisite support. This article focuses on the changing gender demographics of legal education, legal education pipelines, and the role and status of women in higher education with an emphasis on legal education. The final section applies feminist pedagogy to address challenges, opportunities, and aspirations for women in legal education.

The full article is available here.

Posted in Academia, Law Teaching, The Overrepresentation of Women | Comments Off

Upcoming Louis Henkin Lecture on Human Rights @MiamiLawSchool

Posted on September 25, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

If you’ll be in Miami on October 15, 2019, please consider attending this lecture at the University of Miami School of Law:

8th Annual Louis Henkin Lecture on Human Rights

Featuring:
Catherine Powell
Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law

“Race, Gender, and Nation in an Age of Shifting Borders”

This lecture will explore two common tropes in the current immigration debate – the “welfare cheat” and the “criminal” – to demonstrate how these narratives shape legal constructs of nationhood and borders as both raced and gendered. Professor Powell will argue that while commentators have rightly criticized the use of racial tropes in the immigration debate, what remains undertheorized is how gender intersects with race, for example, in the controversies over family separation and the rollback of asylum protections. Professor Powell will address this gap and explore how these intersectional tropes impact the legal rights of women and men, particularly through the unstable prisms of motherhood and masculinity.

Tuesday, October 15th, 2019
6:00 PM

University of Miami School of Law
1311 Miller Road, Room E352
Coral Gables, FL 33146

Posted in Feminism and Families, Immigration, Upcoming Conferences | Comments Off

Why Are Two Naked Men the Logo for Law & Society Association Annual Meeting 2020? @law_soc

Posted on September 23, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

It is a rather curious graphic. The LSA website provides only the information: “Logo design by: Joelle Grogan.”

Posted in Upcoming Conferences, Where are the Women? | Comments Off

Why The Gender Pay Gap Took Center Stage In Michelle Wiliams’s Emmy Speech by @NaomiCahn

Posted on September 23, 2019 by admin

When Michelle Williams accepted a 2019 Emmy for best actress in a limited series or TV movie for her role as the Broadway dancer and actress Gwen Verdon in FX’s “Fosse/Verdon,” she started with the normal thank yous, and ended with the gender wage gap:

“The next time a woman — and especially a woman of color, because she stands to make 52 cents on the dollar compared to her white, male counterpart — tells you what she needs in order to do her job, listen to her. Believe her.”

As Williams well knows from personal experience, there is a substantial pay gap in Hollywood, and, in 2018, only one female actor – Scarlett Johansson — appeared on the list of the top 10 highest earning actors.

(read the rest of the article at Forbes, here)

-Naomi Cahn

Posted in Employment Discrimination, Feminism and Culture | Comments Off

@BernsteinAnita to Receive 2020 William L. Prosser Award

Posted on September 20, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

Anita Bernstein, the Anita and Stuart Subotnick Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, has been named as the recipient of the 2020 AALS Section on Torts and Compensation Systems William L. Prosser Award. The Prosser Award recognizes “outstanding contributions of law teachers in scholarship, teaching and service” and “a lifetime of truly outstanding contribution to the law of torts.” Past recipients include Guido Calebresi (2011), Richard Posner (2012), Jane Stapleton (2013), James Henderson, Jr. (2014), Michael Green (2015), Aaron Twerski (2016), Stephen Sugarman (2017), Marshall Shapo (2018), and Ken Simons (2019).

Professor Bernstein’s law review articles include For and Against Marriage: A Revision, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 129 (2003); Treating Sexual Harassment with Respect, 111 Harv. L. Rev. 445 (1997); How to Make a New Tort: Three Paradoxes, 75 Tex. L. Rev. 1539 (1997); and Law, Culture and Harassment, 142 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1227 (1994). Her most recent book, The Common Law Inside the Female Body (Cambridge University Press 2018), will be the subject of two forthcoming symposia: one in the Northwestern Law Review Online and one in the Boston College Law Review E. Supp.

Congratulations!

Posted in Chutes and Ladders | Comments Off

Deadline 9/20 Feminist Legal Theory Collaborative Research Network: CFP Law & Society 2020

Posted on September 18, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

Bumping to the front in anticipation of the deadline this Friday, 9/20

Call for Papers – Friday, September 20 Deadline

The Feminist Legal Theory Collaborative Research Network

Seeks submissions for the

Law and Society Association Annual Meeting

May 28-31, 2020 in Denver, Colorado

Submission link: https://form.jotform.com/91827795835172

Dear friends and colleagues:

We invite you to submit a paper for a panel to be sponsored by the Feminist Legal Theory Collaborative Research Network at the 2020 Law and Society Annual Meeting in Denver. The Feminist Legal Theory CRN brings together law and society scholars across a range of fields who are interested in feminist legal theory. Information about the Law and Society meeting is available at https://www.lawandsociety.org/index.html.

We will give preference to individual paper proposals over proposals for panels that are pre-formed. One of the goals of the Feminist Legal Theory CRN is to encourage scholars to engage with the diverse work of others across the academy. Any proposals for a fully-formed panel should address specifically the efforts that the panel organizers have made to ensure diversity among presenters, including race, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity; diversity in the institutions of presenters’ affiliation and/or primary training; diversity among positions in the academy such as senior vs. junior scholars, tenured vs. non-tenured participants, doctrinal vs. non-doctrinal faculty.

This year’s meeting invites us to explore “Rule and Resistance.” We are especially interested in proposals that explore the application of feminist legal theory to this theme, broadly construed. We are also interested in papers that will permit us to collaborate with other CRNs, such as the Critical Research on Race and the Law CRN. We welcome multidisciplinary paper proposals and proposals from scholars from all parts of the world.

Our goal is to stimulate focused discussion of papers on which scholars are currently working rather than to seek fully-formed panels. Thus, while you may submit papers that are closer to publication, we are particularly eager to receive proposals for works-in-progress that are at an earlier stage and will benefit from the discussion that the panels will provide. We strongly encourage applications from junior scholars and graduate students – as well as people who are new to feminist legal theory.

The Planning Committee will assign individual papers to panels of four presenters, based on subject matter. Each paper presentation should run roughly 10 to 15 minutes to allow ample time for discussion. We will also assign a chair, and one or two commentators/discussants for each panel, to provide feedback on the papers and promote discussion.

In addition to traditional panels, we are open to proposals in the other formats that the LSA allows, including Author Meets Reader, Salon, or Roundtable sessions. If you have an idea that you think would work well in one of these formats, please also use the submission form above. Organizers of these types of sessions should address in their proposal the same diversity criteria listed above.

Finally–and new this year–the FLT CRN welcomes submissions for roundtables on how to incorporate feminist principles into both teaching methods (pedagogical strategies as well as classroom practices) and course coverage across subject areas. Sessions could potentially address topics such as: (1) what feminist teaching can look like and (2) how to deal with the unique challenges of teaching in a hostile or indifferent environment to feminism. Preference will be given to proposals that involve materials or demonstrations.

Please also note that LSA rules limit each participant to a single conference appearance as a paper panelist or as a roundtable participant. As a condition of participating as part of a program sponsored by the CRN, we also ask that you agree to serve as a chair and/or commentator/discussant for another panel or participant. We will of course take into account expertise and topic preferences to the degree possible.

Chairs are responsible for the primary organization of the panel. Chairs will develop a 100 to 250 word description for the session and submit the session proposal to LSA before the November 6 LSA deadline. This will ensure that other participants accepted by the CRN can submit their proposal to LSA, using the panel number assigned by the CRN. The Chair may also serve as the Discussant for the panel, or there may be a separate Discussant. Where possible, we will attempt to assign two Discussants to each paper panel. Discussants read the two to three papers assigned to them and prepare a short commentary to offer feedback and serve as a basis for discussion among the panelist and audience members as well as (to the extent relevant) identify ways that the papers relate to one another.

If you would like to present a paper as part of a CRN panel, please make your submission here https://form.jotform.com/91827795835172. The submission form will ask you to provide:

A 500 word abstract or summary of your paper;
Your paper’s title
Your name and institutional affiliation;
Number of years you have been in teaching/working as a grad student; and
A list of your areas of interest and expertise within feminist legal theory.

Please note that for Author Meets Reader, Salon, or Roundtable sessions, organizers should provide a 500-word summary of the topic and the contributions they expect the proposed participants to make.

If you need to contact the CRN Planning Committee, please do so via feministlegaltheory@gmail.com. (Please do not send submissions to individual committee members.)

Please submit all proposals by Friday, September 20, 2019. Late proposals may not be considered for inclusion. This schedule will permit us to organize panels and submit them prior to the LSA’s deadline of November 6. In the past, we have accommodated as many panelists as possible, but have been unable to accept all proposals. If we are unable to accept your proposal for the CRN, we will notify you by early November so that you can submit an independent proposal to LSA.

We hope you’ll join us in Denver to share and discuss the scholarship in which we are all engaged and connect with others doing work on feminist legal theory.

Finally, please make sure to sign up for the Feminist Legal Theory Collaborative Research page on TWEN, as that is our primary platform for communication about the CRN’s activities. If your primary academic affiliation is outside a U.S.-based law school, please contact Bridget Crawford (bcrawford@law.pace.edu), and she will arrange for you to have access to TWEN, if you provide your institutional email account. The CRN welcomes participants from all parts of the academy.

2020 LSA Feminist Legal Theory CRN Planning Committee

Naomi Cahn (co-chair)

Bridget Crawford (co-chair)

David Cohen

Tugce Ellialti

Jessica Feinberg

Jessica Knouse

Shruti Rana

Jordan Woods

Posted in Call for Papers or Participation | Comments Off

Why Do Many Female Faculty Members (Rightfully) Insist on Being Called “Professor”?

Posted on September 7, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

The answer is that many women, especially women of color, women with non-traditional bodies, women who are young, women who are middle0aged, women who are old, women who speak with an accent, and gender non-conforming folks, to name a few, don’t have the privilege of being presumed to be authoritative and competent.

From the Twitter feed of Dr. Sarah T. Romano (@STRomanoPhD) (Political Science and Global Studies, Lesley University), this syllabus message to students:

Course Policies and University Resources/Services:

What do I call my instructor? Across your classes at Lesley University, the most respectful way to address your instructor in class, over email, or in other interactions is as “Professor _____” or “Dr. ____.” This is because most of your instructors have earned their doctorates, or PhDs, in their fields. Some faculty may have Masters (MA) degrees and are working on completing their PhDs. If you are unsure if your instructor has a PhD, “Professor” is a safe bet! If your instructor invites you to call them by their first name, then of course you may do so.

In law schools, many (most) professors do not have PhDs, so “Professor” is a super-safe bet. If the instructor is an adjunct, a student cannot go *wrong* calling the adjunct “Professor” (different schools do/do not permit adjuncts to use that title). If the school’s adjuncts do not use the title, the adjunct can simply say, “Oh, it’s simply Mr./Ms. ____.” Years ago, I remember when tax instructor Meade Emory, adjunct extraordinaire, said we were free to call him “Meade” after graduation. But until then, “Mr. Emory” would do.

My general thought is that when in doubt, one should always choose the more respectful title. But then again, I’m 50 years old and I still refer to some friends of my parents (and parents of childhood friends) as “Mr. ____” and “Mrs. ____.” So I’m old-fashioned like that.

As for my own (now college-aged) child, the general norm in our community was that teachers went by “Mr. ___” and “Ms. ____,” but friends’ parents were always on a first-name basis. So the universe of people who will call me “Ms. Crawford” in the coming decades is probably limited to those people with whom I went to law school, but we weren’t close enough that we ever learned each others’ first names. Or my first year law professors.

Professor Bruce Mann, I knew it was you on the phone from the way you said, “Ms. Crawford”!

Posted in Academia, If you're a woman | Comments Off

Add Yourself to the Law Professor Twitter Census Before 9/9

Posted on September 5, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

Here, if you’re a full-time law professor tweeting under your own name. Details here.

Posted in Call for Papers or Participation, Feminists in Academia | Comments Off

Updated Guide for Law Review Submission to Journals Specializing in Gender, Women & Sexuality

Posted on August 31, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

I’ve updated the law review submission guide to 29 U.S.-based law reviews and journals classified under the subject “Gender, Women and Sexuality” by the Washington & Lee Law Journal Rankings and the additional journals that contain the word “gender” in their title, but are not listed in the Washington & Lee Law Journal Rankings.

They are:

Yale Journal of Law & Feminism
Harvard Journal of Law & Gender
Columbia Journal of Gender & Law
New York University Review of Law & Social Change
University of Pennsylvania Review of Law & Social Change
Michigan Journal of Gender & Law
Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy (closed after 2019-2020)
Duke Forum for Law & Social Change
Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice
Georgetown Journal of Gender & the Law
UCLA Women’s Law Journal
Texas Journal of Women, Gender and Law (closed)
Southern California Review of Law & Social Justice
Law & Inequality
Boston College J. of Law & Social Justice (closed)
Journal of Gender, Race & Justice
Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society
William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender & Social Justice
Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights and Social Justice
University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender & Class
Tulane Journal of Law & Sexuality
Hastings Women’s Law Journal
American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law
The Modern American
Women’s Rights Law Reporter
Idaho Critical Studies Journal
Feminist Criminology
Women Lawyers Journal
Journal of Law & Social Deviance

The guide is available for download here.

Posted in Academia, Feminist Legal Scholarship | Comments Off

Updated Guide on Submissions to US Law Review Online Presences

Posted on August 31, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

I’ve updated my guide to submitting to online companions to include 50 schools’ law reviews. The new guide is here on SSRN. The chart with contains details on the mechanics of submitting essays, commentaries, reviews to the online presence of journals at 50+ schools.

For now, the document contains information about word count limitations, subject matter preferences, submission details and other guidelines authors may find relevant when considering sending their work to law review presences online.

Details vary widely from journal to journal. Not all journals accept unsolicited contributions.

Corrections, additions, refinements to this chart are very welcome. (If for any reason the link doesn’t work because the submission hasn’t been reviewed yet by SSRN, you can navigate to it via my SSRN page here.)

Posted in Academia, Feminist Legal Scholarship, Law Schools | Comments Off

Reflecting on Twenty-Five Years of Duke Journal of Gender & Law

Posted on August 21, 2019 by admin

In 1994, Professor Katharine Bartlett founded the Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy to solidify gender law as an intellectually disciplined and complex field of legal scholarship. Despite women’s ongoing struggle to achieve equal rights and treatment in nearly every aspect of the law and society––the workplace, the school, and the home, to name a few––gender law remained “shunned as a political activity inappropriate to institutions committed to academic rigor, objectivity, and neutrality.”

At the time of the Journal’s inaugural publication, gender law scholars and their work remained largely overlooked by other law reviews. But because of fierce advocates like Professor Bartlett and strong publications, including the Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, feminist scholarship thrived and earned long-overdue respect. Today, gender law remains both a disciplined, rigorous area of jurisprudence and a source of passionate discourse. Its wide applications, from sexual violence and harassment to family structure and children, continue to impact each person today, regardless of their sex.

In the past 25 years, the Journal has published insightful scholarship on a breadth of gender issues, such as the paternalism of “informed consent” and abortion, the treatment of women soldiers in the military, and reexamining the First Amendment under Title IX and the equal opportunity to education. The Journal has also been privileged to print outstanding Articles, Essays, and student Notes that explore intersectional critiques on transracial adoptions, race and gender in criminal law, queer theory and feminism, the social realities of HIV law, and racial identity and gender performance. We are proud to be a law review that has pushed convention and remained committed to equality.

In my application to Duke Law, I wrote about how I wanted to become a part of the Journal, not only because it was one of the most cited publications in its subject area, but also because it earnestly championed issues that are important to oppressed groups. I wanted to become part of a tight-knit community of Duke Law students who also felt that gender, race, sexuality, and class would always matter because these make up the fabric of our identity. It is no surprise that these very issues compelled many staff members to go to law school in the first place.

The Journal will conclude in 2020 with its 25th anniversary issue. I have no doubt that with Professor Kathryn Webb Bradley as our faculty advisor and with my phenomenal editorial team, we will produce an excellent final publication.

Gender scholarship’s movement into mainstream law reviews shows that the issues the Journal has published are now becoming more accessible and recognized. This movement also shows that the issues we have had the opportunity to publish will continue to generate conversation, controversy, and action. As a society and legal community, we still have a long way to go in the fight for equality. As the Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, we hope that we have laid the groundwork for even more meaningful change to come.

-Denise Go

Editor in Chief, Volume 27

Posted in Feminist Legal Scholarship, Law Schools | Comments Off

Is that Maya Angelou’s Poem in a NYT Crossword Clue? Yes!

Posted on August 20, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

From the New York Times Crossword for Saturday, August 17, 2019:

28 Down Clue: Classic poem with the lines “Did you want to see me broken? /Bowed head and lowered eyes?

28 Down Answer: STILL I RISE

The text of the Maya Angelou’s full poem is here.

(And lest I get too excited that I caught this cultural reference, another in my household pointed out that I had absolutely nothing to offer in response to 59 Across in today’s puzzle: “Late Swedish electronic musician with the 2013 hit “Wake Me Up.” Answer after the fold for those stuck in the Wham! era, like me.) Continue reading →

Posted in Feminism and Culture | Comments Off

Law Needs Feminism Because…Monash University Chapter

Posted on August 20, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

The fab feminists at Monash University Faculty of Law are hosting a #LawNeedsFeminism exhibition. The groups is releasing one photo a day via the group’s Facebook page here.

Monash is also the home of the Feminist Legal Studies Group, co-convened by Dr. Becky Batagnol and Dr. Janice Richardson. The group maintains a blog, Themis Says, and interested readers can sign up to receive email notifications of new posts. Check it out!

Posted in Feminism and Culture, Feminists in Academia, Sisters In Other Nations | Comments Off

Be Counted in the 2019-2020 Law Prof Twitter Census

Posted on August 19, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

You can add yourself (or check that you are listed correctly) over here at the Faculty Lounge.

Law teachers from non-US jurisdictions seem especially underrepresented, so please let us know (if you want to) that you’re on Twitter!

Posted in Academia, Law Teaching | Comments Off

Bringing Indigeneous Voices Into Judicial Decision-Making

Posted on August 19, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

This news from Sydney (Australia) Law School (here):

Dr Nicole Watson will use an Australian Research Council grant to incorporate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices into judgments and celebrate their contributions to the development of Australian law.

Dr Watson, who is also the Associate Dean (Indigenous), was awarded the University’s only Discovery Indigenous grant.

She will work with Professor Heather Douglas from the University of Queensland and Dr Asmi Wood from the Australian National University to write judgments so they are inclusive of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s voices and histories.

“I was inspired by the Feminist Judgments Project, which involved rewriting well-known cases from a feminist perspective,” she says.

“The project began in Canada and has also been undertaken in the UK and Australia. I was very lucky to be involved in the Australian project, rewriting a judgment from a criminal case from Central Australia in the 1930s.”

Bringing Indigenous Voices into Judicial Decision-Making will extend methodologies created by international and Australian scholars for correcting the absence of women’s voices. The project, which has received funding for three years, will focus on producing the missing Indigenous judgment in 20 decisions of Australian superior courts over the course of the 20th century.

“I hope that my University of Sydney colleagues and our students will also be involved in rewriting the judgments,”Dr Watson says. The other component of the project will explore the gulf between judge-made law and the lived experience of Indigenous litigants through an in-depth examination of four test cases from Queensland.

“In the 1980s and 1990s Indigenous people, particularly in Queensland, began using the law as a tool of resistance,” she says. “We plan to examine the histories that preceded four of the test cases. We will be interviewing litigants and their legal representatives to discover how they were able to mobilise resources for the cases, and what the lasting impacts of the litigation have been for their communities.” The project will … build a new relationship between Australian judges and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and be an original contribution to Australia’s jurisprudence on them and the law.

The University of Sydney’s full announcement is here.

Posted in Courts and the Judiciary, Feminist Legal Scholarship, Race and Racism, Sisters In Other Nations | Comments Off

New Book Announcement: “The Princeton Fugitive Slave” by Lolita Buckner Inniss (@auntiefeminist @SMULawSchool)

Posted on August 17, 2019 by Bridget Crawford

Professor Lolita Buckner Inniss (SMU) has published her book, The Princeton Fugitive Slave: The Trials of James Collins Johnson (Fordham U. Press 2019). Here is the publisher’s description:

James Collins Johnson made his name by escaping slavery in Maryland and fleeing to Princeton, New Jersey, where he built a life in a bustling community of African Americans working at what is now Princeton University. After only four years, he was recognized by a student from Maryland, arrested, and subjected to a trial for extradition under the 1793 Fugitive Slave Act. On the eve of his rendition, after attempts to free Johnson by force had failed, a local aristocratic white woman purchased Johnson’s freedom, allowing him to avoid re-enslavement. The Princeton Fugitive Slave reconstructs James Collins Johnson’s life, from birth and enslaved life in Maryland to his daring escape, sensational trial for re-enslavement, and last-minute change of fortune, and through to the end of his life in Princeton, where he remained a figure of local fascination.

Stories of Johnson’s life in Princeton often describe him as a contented, jovial soul, beloved on campus and memorialized on his gravestone as “The Students Friend.” But these familiar accounts come from student writings and sentimental recollections in alumni reports—stories from elite, predominantly white, often southern sources whose relationships with Johnson were hopelessly distorted by differences in race and social standing. In interrogating these stories against archival records, newspaper accounts, courtroom narratives, photographs, and family histories, author Lolita Buckner Inniss builds a picture of Johnson on his own terms, piecing together the sparse evidence and disaggregating him from the other black vendors with whom he was sometimes confused.

By telling Johnson’s story and examining the relationship between antebellum Princeton’s black residents and the economic engine that supported their community, the book questions the distinction between employment and servitude that shrinks and threatens to disappear when an individual’s freedom is circumscribed by immobility, lack of opportunity, and contingency on local interpretations of a hotly contested body of law.

The Legal History blog covered the book here.

The book is available for pre-order now (I ordered mine!). The official publication date will be September 3, 2019. Looking forward to reading this book!

Posted in Academia, Feminist Legal History, Feminist Legal Scholarship, Race and Racism | Comments Off

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

An expanded version of these ideas appear in Hearing Women: From Professor Hill to Dr. Ford, 33 Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development __ ( forthcoming 2019).

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

(read the rest of the article at Forbes, here)

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Albany Law School

Ambedkar University Delhi

American University Washington College of Law

Arizona State University College of Law

Australian National University College of Law

Barry University School of Law

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Birmingham City University School of Law

Birmingham Law School

Boston College Law School

Boston University School of Law

Brigham Young University School of Law

Bristol Law School

Brooklyn Law School

California Western School of Law

Case Western Reserve University

City University of New York

Cleveland State University College of Law

Columbia Law School

Cornell University Law School

Creighton University School of Law

Dalhousie University

DePaul University College of Law

Drake University Law School

Drexel University College of Law

Duke University School of Law

Durham Law School

Edinburgh Law School