Feminist Law Professors | Nearly all of us root for fairness, not for our own sex.

Learning from the Hillary Clinton Campaign

Posted on September 1, 2010 by cyrachoudhury

A new organization has formed to track the sexist statements and foci on women political candidates. Regardless of whether one supported Hillary Clinton, it was very difficult to escape the barrage of sexist "white noise" generated by media, political commentators and other candidates. So, this new organization is a welcome development and will perhaps track these tactics in a more scientific way. That data will be used to confront and change the culture of permissiveness of attacks on women candidates, according to the post. One one hand, I applaud the organization and will watch it with interest. Perhaps a concerted effort is what is required because during the Hillary campaign, the regular and vociferous objections to sexism that were made seemed to fall on deaf ears. Like the article says, the statements "keep coming."

From the article in the Washington Post:

The effort to track sexist comments and put pressure on advertisers who help bankroll the media figures responsible for some of the remarks comes as women campaign in several high-profile races this year, including competitive Senate seats and governorships in South Carolina and California.

(Complete political coverage on PostPolitics)

The Women's Campaign Forum, Women's Media Center and Political Parity plan to spend $250,000 on research and outreach for the initiative, which they have dubbed NameItChangeIt. The idea is to call out a range of issues - everything from what the groups see as an unfair focus on women's clothes and family responsibilities to profane name-calling.

The money will pay for an online advertising campaign, including a website, spoofy videos and the development of a smart phone application that allows users to report sexist comments in the media.

Their list so far, which goes back several years, includes a comment by conservative radio host G. Gordon Liddy about Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor: "Let's hope that the key conferences aren't when she's menstruating or something, or just before she's going to menstruate," Liddy said on his show. "That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then."

The women's groups also point to a quote in a Wall Street Journal story about former Alaska governor Sarah Palin's run for vice president where a liberal voter asks, "Who's watching the baby? And what kind of nurturing is going on in that 17-year-old's life if she's pregnant?"

The comments were only lightly condemned, said Jehmu Greene, president of the Women's Media Center, and they keep coming.

Read the rest here.

--Cyra Akila Choudhury

Posted in Academia | Leave a comment

NY Gov Signs Historic Legislation Protecting Rights of Domestic Workers

Posted on August 31, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

LaborNotes has the story:

The new law guarantees domestic workers time-and-half pay after working more than 40 hours and ensures at least a day off each week. They will also be covered under the state’s worker compensation and anti-discrimination laws and gain access to unemployment insurance. The law mandates the state Department of Labor to study the feasibility of collective bargaining for domestic workers and report its findings by November.

Read the full post here.

At the signing ceremony, Governor Paterson drew heavily on references from Harriet Tubman (see here) and characterized the legislation as a major human-rights victory.

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Employment Discrimination | Leave a comment

Cohen and Chen on “Trading-Off Reproductive Technology and Adoption”

Posted on August 30, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

I. Glenn Cohen (Harvard) and Daniel L. Chen (Duke) have posted to SSRN their article, Trading-Off Reproductive Technology and Adoption: Does Subsidizing in Vitro Fertilization Decrease Adoption Rates and Should it Matter? forthcoming in the Minnesota Law Review. Here is the abstract:

For those facing infertility, using assisted reproductive technology to have genetically related children is a very expensive proposition. In particular, to produce a live birth through in vitro fertilization (IVF) will cost an individual (on average) between $66,667 and $114,286 in the U.S. If forced to pay these prices out of pocket, many would be unable to afford this technology. Given this reality, a number of states have attempted to improve access to reproductive technology through state-level insurance mandates that cover IVF. Several scholars, however, have worried that increasing access in this way will cause a diminution in adoptions and have argued against enactment of state mandates for that reason.

In this paper, which was selected for presentation at the 2010 Stanford-Yale Junior Faculty Forum, we push against that conclusion on two fronts.

First, we interrogate the normative premises of the argument and expose its contestable implicit assumptions about how the state should balance the interests of existing children waiting for adoption and those seeking access to reproductive technology in order to have genetically related children.

Second, we investigate the unexamined empirical question behind the conclusion: does state subsidization of reproductive technologies through insurance mandates actually reduce adoption; that is, is there a trade-off between helping individuals conceive and helping children waiting to be adopted? We call the claim that there is such an effect the “substitution theory.” Using the differential timing of introduction of state-level insurance mandates relating to IVF in some states and differences in the forms these mandates take, we employ several different econometric techniques (differences-in-differences, ordinary least squares, two-stage least squares) to examine the effect of these mandates on IVF utilization and adoption. Contrary to the assumption of the substitution theory, we find no strong evidence that state support of IVF through these mandates crowds out either domestic or international adoption.

The full paper is available here.

Cohen and Chen bring much-needed empirics to the legal conversation.

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Feminism and Technology, Reproductive Rights, Women and Economics | Leave a comment

Queen’s University Feminist Legal Studies: CFP – Women and Equality – Gender-Based Analysis, Law and Economic Rights

Posted on August 30, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

From Kathy Lahey at Queen's University, this Call for Papers:

QUEEN’S UNIVERSITY
FEMINIST LEGAL STUDIES QUEEN’S

Call for papers for workshop on —

Women and Equality — Gender-based Analysis,
Law, and Economic Rights

Sex equality in the twenty-first century:
Long before the 2008 global economic crisis occurred, women in large economies began to see the promise of equality eroding. ‘Crisis’ policies have done nothing to reverse that trend. A decade ago, Canada and the US were ranked first and third on the UN gender-related development index; by 2009, they had already fallen to fourth and nineteenth respectively, and are ranked even lower on equality-specific indexes (e.g., 25 and 31 on the World Economic Forum index, 74 and 105 on the UN gender disparity measure). Similar patterns can be seen in the UK and many European countries.

At the same time, countries such as South Africa continue to demonstrate that ‘feminism works’ as they accelerate their movement toward increased sex equality. For women in those countries, the question is still ‘when will women achieve equality?’ But for growing numbers of women, the question is now becoming ‘will women ever achieve equality?’

This workshop will examine current developments affecting the status of women with particular concern for legal, economic, and equality rights. What roles do race, immigration status, Aboriginal heritage, education, family composition, and other factors play in shaping the current issues facing women? Can specific roadblocks to the attainment of further equality be identified? Are there better policies that governments can enact? What role have neoliberal, neoconservative, and economic ‘crisis’ politics played? Can international obligations such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women counter sexist politics? And what impact are emerging environmental, security, budgetary, and regulatory issues having on women as compared with men and across class and race lines?

Call for papers:
This workshop invites paper and panel submissions on equality issues grounded in law, public policy, economic rights, international and transnational gender studies, foreign affairs, health/medicine, women’s studies, and other multidisciplinary studies.

Date and location:
The conference will be held at Queen’s University Faculty of Law, Kingston, Ont. on Saturday October 23, 2010, with an informal reception/discussion on Friday evening.

Submitting paper topics:
If you are interested in presenting a paper at this conference, or in organizing a panel on specific issues, please email your proposal and a short description to Bita Amani at amanib@queensu.ca or Kathleen Lahey at kal2@queensu.ca. This can be sent any time until approximately September 25, 2010. Participation is being confirmed on a rolling basis.

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Call for Papers or Participation | Leave a comment

Kristof, “Don’t Write Off Men Just Yet”

Posted on August 29, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

Earlier this summer, author Nicholas Kristof responded powerfully to the Atlantic's cover story, "The End of Men." In this July 2010 column for the NYT, Kristof wrote:

[C]ount me a skeptic. My hunch is that we’re moving into greater gender balance, not a fundamentally new imbalance in the other direction. Don’t hold your breath for “the end of men.”

One reason is that women’s gains still have a catch-up quality to them. Catch-up is easier than forging ahead. * * *

I think we exaggerate the degree to which the sexes are mired in conflict. As Henry Kissinger once said, “Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There’s too much fraternizing with the enemy.” We men want our wives and daughters to encounter opportunity in the workplace, not sexual harassment; women want their husbands and sons to be in the executive suite, not jail. Nearly all of us root for fairness, not for our own sex.

The truth is that we men have typically benefited as women have gained greater equality. Those men who have lost their jobs in the recession are now more likely to have a wife who still has a job and can keep up the mortgage payments. And women have been particularly prominent in the social sector, devising new programs for the mostly male ranks of the jobless or homeless.

So forget about gender war and zero-sum games. Odds are that we men will find a way to hold our own, with the help of women. And we’ll benefit as smart and talented women belatedly have the opportunity to deploy their skills on behalf of all of humanity — including those of us with Y chromosomes.

The notion that all people -- not just women -- benefit from women's equality deserves further consideration. Some feminists are skeptical of shifting focus from "women's rights" to "gender justice," because women's historic experience of justice (unmodified) has not been one of equal treatment. Some men are skeptical of feminists' claims, fearing -- perhaps -- that feminists want more rights than men have, not equal rights. [Side note: "equality" and "equal rights" are contested and contestable feminist goals.]

Kristof's column invites us to rethink justice as expansive terrain instead of limited territory. I like that.

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Feminism and Law | 1 Comment

Vintage Clairol Ad

Posted on August 29, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

From 1952. I find it interesting that the "sleeping beauty" who is awakens is a redhead, not the blonde who went to sleep. And those eyebrows would be no minor feat.

image source: Duke Library Digital Collections.

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Feminism and Culture | Leave a comment

In Memory of Harry E. White, Jr.

Posted on August 25, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

Harry E. White, Jr., a former tax partner at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, died on July 23, 2010. He was a friend and mentor. Harry was one of the few people I have ever met who really, really knew how to do old-school tax research and could actually explain to others how to do it. Harry knew all of the paper sources and reporters. He could tell you from memory how commercial reporters' coverage of the 1954 Act varied. He knew where the "holes" were in new on-line databases. Harry loved legislative history and found buried gems that the rest of us couldn't.

When I started teaching and was thinking about my first article, I had lunch with Harry to pick his brain, to ask whether he saw in other parts of the tax law what I thought I saw in one part. I had lunch with Harry because I liked to watch him think.

Here is the obituary from the New York Times:

Son of the late Verena Leisen and Judge Harry E. White. Received BSFS, Georgetown University and LL.B. from Columbia University Law School. Partner at the law firm of Milbank Tweed, Hadley and McCloy specializing in international taxation. Director and then President for 12 years on the Board of the "333 East 55th Street Owners Cooperative Association." Member of the Players' Club. Retired Major in MI-USAR, served in Vietnam. Recipient of the Bronze Star. Active member of the New York Sea Gypsies. Survived by his spouse, Dr. M. P. A. Sheaffer, his brother Thomas White, a stepsister, Lida Parrish, and a stepbrother, J. William Leisen. Contributions may be made either to Divers Alert Network or to the American Cancer Society.

I respected Harry White immensely and I will miss his counsel. Farewell, Harry.

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Deaths | Leave a comment

Dowd on “The Man Question: Male Subordination and Privilege”

Posted on August 25, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

Feminist Law Prof Nancy Dowd (U Florida) has just published new book about the intersection of masculinities scholarship and feminism. The Man Question: Male Subordination and Privilege its hot off the NYU presses. Here's the publisher's description:

Among the many important tools feminist legal theorists have given scholars is that of anti-essentialism: all women are not created equal, and privilege varies greatly by circumstances, particularly that of race and class. Yet at the same time, feminist legal theory tends to view men through an essentialist lens, in which men are created equal. The study of masculinities, inspired by feminist theory to explore the construction of manhood and masculinity, questions the real circumstances of men, not in order to deny men’s privilege but to explore in particular how privilege is constructed, and what price is paid for it.

In this groundbreaking work, feminist legal theorist Nancy E. Dowd exhorts readers to apply the anti-essentialist model—so dominant in feminist jurisprudence—to the study of masculinities. She demonstrates how men’s treatment by the law and society in general varies by race, economic position, sexuality, and other factors. She applies these insights to both boys and men, looking at men’s experience of fatherhood and sexual abuse and boys’ experience in the contexts of education and juvenile justice, to examine how masculinities analysis exposes both privilege and subordination. Ultimately, Dowd calls for a more inclusive feminist theory, which, by acknowledging the study of masculinities, can broaden our understanding of privilege and subordination.

Looks like a worthwhile read!

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Feminist Legal Scholarship, Masculinity | Leave a comment

Is (Black) Beauty Still a Feminist Issue?

Posted on August 25, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

That's the question that Feminist Law Prof Imani Perry (Princeton) asks in this piece over at HuffPo:

Last night I read my friends' tweets about the Miss Universe Pageant. But I didn't watch it. I am an old fashioned feminist when it comes to pageants. They turn my stomach. I find them embarrassing and absurd. But I can't be preachy about my dislike.

After all, I love fashion magazines, the ones filled with fantasies of over-the-top consumption and impossible beauty and I won't apologize for that indulgence, so I have no judgment for pageant watchers. Pageants just aren't for me.

But out of curiosity this morning I looked at the Miss Universe contestants online, inspired by the internet chatter. And lo and behold I was shocked when I realized that Miss Ecuador, Miss Honduras and Miss Nicaragua, were all Latinas of African descent. Only recently have noticeably Indian and African looking women begun to be featured on Latin American television and film, and still in small numbers. * * *

As a Black woman, for centuries now, flesh like my flesh has carried the burden of presumed inferiority. Black women have been cast as hypersexual or desexualized, always available yet undesired, ridiculous and often ugly, the mules of the world. Notwithstanding a few beauty icons, public figures, and celebrities, these stereotypic representations are still common. And perhaps this is why the fantasy of a beauty culture that includes Black women has so much allure. Fantastic images of Black women who are desired yet untouchable, pristine, flawless, and admired, lie so contrary to how we have been cast throughout history. And that feels kind of good. * * *

My personal resolution on the beauty issue is this: When images of physical beauty serve to diminish the depth of a woman's personhood, we should reject them. And when they seem to restore an appreciation of that which has been devalued, or to be attached to an open sense of expressiveness, play, and fun, then we should feel free to enjoy them. But in either case, our eyes must always be focused on actual lives, not just screens and pages in a magazine.

Read Professor Perry's full article here.

-Bridget Crawford

images (from top): Lady Mina Lastra (Miss Ecuador 2010); Kenia Martinez (Miss Honduras 2010); Scharllette Allen Moses (Miss Nicaragua 2010)

Posted in Feminism and Culture | Leave a comment

Buying Parental Rights

Posted on August 23, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

Earlier this summer, the journal Bioethics published this interesting piece by Jason K. M. Hanna (Philosophy, Northern Illinois: Revisiting Child-Based Objections to Commercial Surrogacy. Here is the abstract:

Many critics of commercial surrogate motherhood argue that it violates the rights of children. In this paper, I respond to several versions of this objection. The most common version claims that surrogacy involves child-selling. I argue that while proponents of surrogacy have generally failed to provide an adequate response to this objection, it can be overcome. After showing that the two most prominent arguments for the child-selling objection fail, I explain how the commissioning couple can acquire parental rights by paying the surrogate only for her reproductive labor. My explanation appeals to the idea that parental rights are acquired by those who have claims over the reproductive labor that produces the child, not necessarily by those who actually perform the labor. This account clarifies how commercial surrogacy differs from commercial adoption. In the final section of the paper, I consider and reject three further child-based objections to commercial surrogacy: that it establishes a market in children's attributes, that it requires courts to stray from the best interests standard in determining custodial rights, and that it requires the surrogate to neglect her parental responsibilities. Since each of these objections fails, children's rights probably do not pose an obstacle to the acceptability of commercial surrogacy arrangements.

The full cite is 24 Bioethics 341-347 (2010).

H/T Naomi Cahn

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Feminism and Families, Reproductive Rights | Leave a comment

Obama’s “Feminine” Communication Style

Posted on August 23, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

I missed this post earlier in the summer over at Indisputably, the ADR Prof Blog. Andrea Schneider (Marquette) writes about Obama's 'Feminine' Communication Style:

A few weeks ago, Kathleen Parker, a writer for the Washington Post, likened Obama to a woman because of his negotiation style, calling him the first female president. (See the article here.) Confronted with crises and criticisms, our President hasn’t responded in the alpha dog style of many male politicians. Instead, he’s a listener and talks it out. Traditionally, according to Parker, these methods are exercised almost exclusively by women. While the author is quick to commend the President on this refreshing change from the norm, she also points out that his style, especially in response to crises like the BP oil disaster, may have decreased his effectiveness. Does this mean that women, in negotiating and communicating in this talk-it-out method are also less effective? Or is that assessment only true of men who adopt that style? The article goes on to cite research from University of Minnesota Professor Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, who asserts that men can adopt feminine communication styles without the consequence of being labelled as ineffective. Parker, however, isn’t convinced that Obama hasn’t suffered for his adoption.

Additionally, women are generally viewed as effective communicators while employing “feminine” communication styles, but have been chastised for taking on styles normally attributed to men. For example, Hillary Clinton has received continual criticism for talking too assertively. (For more on this, see my book chapter with others on gender, politics and negotiation or my article comparing Clinton’s experience to female lawyers) On the other hand, female candidates who are perceived as likable might also be trivalized. (See a great Newsweek article from early July–Too Hot to Handle)

Read the rest of the post (here) at Indisputably.

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Feminism and Politics | Leave a comment

Blog of the Institute for Feminist Legal Studies at Osgoode Hall

Posted on August 21, 2010 by Kim Brooks

Here’s a new blog launched by the Institute for Feminist Legal Studies based at Osgoode Hall Law School, York University. The Institute has a vibrant register of activities and visitors thanks in large measure to the Canadian feminist law prof pioneer, Mary Jane Mossman, as well as the many feminists who are and have been appointed at Osgoode Hall. Sonia Lawrence has recently stepped into the role as Director. Sonia’s work on equality jurisprudence, criminal law, feminist and critical race theory, and poverty law is always interesting. The blog itself will go a long way toward “building a community of interest,” one of the aims of the Institute. I’d urge you all to check it out and consider posting or sending material to Sonia.

-Kim Brooks

Posted in Feminist Blogs Of Interest | Leave a comment

Memo to Yale Law School Professor Adam Cohen: “What Price Waterhouse did is like saying ‘nigger.’”

Posted on August 19, 2010 by admin

A member of the blogroll who has requested anonymity contributes the following post:

Adam Cohen, who is apparently a law professor at Yale Law School, seems not to be familiar with the case of Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse, and that Cohen recently wrote an article (deemed a “case study”) that was published in Time and widely disseminated elsewhere that harkens back to the troubling subtle sexism in Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse.

It is time for Professor Cohen to be educated, and I am happy to do it: In the subtle sexism case of Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse, Ann Hopkins was denied partnership at Price Waterhouse because she was not “feminine” enough. She was direct, she was unapologetic, and she had a personality that was more masculine than feminine.

When D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Harry Edwards was trying to explain to the Price Waterhouse lawyers why their client’s sexist discrimination against a woman simply because she was not “feminine” was unlawful, Judge Edwards finally said in frustration:

If someone said “I hate Blacks,” it might be clearer to you, but you seem to suggest that sexual stereotyping is different from race stereotyping. [It is not.] What Price Waterhouse did is like saying “nigger.”

With that as backdrop, I write this open letter to Yale Law School Professor Adam Cohen, based on his Time “case study,” available at available here.

Dear Professor Adam Cohen:

The bizarre article qua “case study” you wrote regarding Judge Judith Eiler reads much like an article attacking a black person for acting “too black,” and, quite frankly, the article troubles me, particularly given that you are a professor, who has exposure to students and who is in a position to mold their thoughts and attitudes.

More specifically, two things come to mind regarding your disturbing opinion article in Time.

1. First, it appears that you are taking to task Judge Judith Eiler for being a direct, honest, candid, and efficient judge who tolerates no nonsense or time-wasting in her court. With all due respect, your critique strikes me as preposterous. Being direct, honest, and unwilling to tolerate nonsense seems to me to be good traits for a judge to have, even if the judge’s candor occasionally hurts a defendant’s feelings.

Your objection is that Judge Eiler is painfully honest – maybe even brusque or acerbic at times – saying, for example, to a defendant who drove like an idiot (endangering others) “If you drive like an idiot 'cause you're late for work, you're gonna have to pay for it," and warning him that continue idiotic behavior was not in his best interests, saying “You can see your picture on the headlines of the Seattle Times, stupid young man who shouldn't be driving."

With all due respect, particularly given that you are now teaching law school and presumably are in a position in which you should be setting standards and emphasizing the importance of following reasonable laws, are you really taking issue with a judge’s statements that, while harsh, make sense in the context of the underlying unlawful behavior? Do you honestly fail to appreciate how ridiculous your objections sound?

Similarly, it concerns me that you would write an article publicly chastising Judge Judith Eiler and using her name and picture, yet you did not mention the name of the reckless-driving lawbreaker. It seems that you tried hard to nationally shame the female judge who was doing her job (albeit in a direct, no nonsense way), yet you tried to protect the lawbreaker who was only in court before Judge Eiler because he/she drove like an idiot, broke the law, and endangered others.

That troubles me, and it speaks poorly of your judgment.

2. Second, surely you must realize how gender-biased your article and critique seem to be. To wit, do you really believe that a female jurist who has grappled her way into a position of power should be criticized for having a “tart tongue?” Really?

If so, I respectfully suggest that you should not be in the classroom at Yale Law School. Instead, you should sit down and read the opinions in the case of Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse. That case made clear that it is no longer acceptable to negatively judge professional women who catch your attention because they behave in traditionally-masculine ways, by, for example, being blunt, abrasive, or direct. It is no longer acceptable to chastise women for failing to behave as demure, quiet, submissive, needlessly supplicant, sugary-sweet belles.

Indeed, one might suggest that your op-ed smacks of subtle sexism by, for example, making reference to women in power who are no-nonsense as being “tart tongue-d” (or “bitches” or “prickly”) when men with the same qualities have traditionally been deemed as “hard-nosed,” “straight-shooter,” or “no-bullshit” sorts. (Indeed, the district court judge in the landmark Hopkins case was respectfully recognized as being “impatient, especially with the irrelevant, and acerbic when irritated.” “Acerbic when irritated.” That sounds like what Judge Eiler was. “Acerbic when irritated.”

Why do all the other male judges in the world who are “acerbic when irritated” avoid your attention, yet Judge Eiler, whom you apparently view as a bitch, merited an entire article from you and a national shaming?

With all due respect, I believe you owe Judge Eiler and the rest of the “acerbic when irritated” female lawyers and judges in the world an apology.

Posted in Courts and the Judiciary, Employment Discrimination, Feminism and the Workplace | 4 Comments

“Feminist Mom Roundup” Theme: The Power of Words

Posted on August 17, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

Transatlantic Blonde has a Friday Feminist Roundup Theme (here) calling for ruminations from "feminist moms" on "The Power of Words" (however you interpret it).

The first thing that the prompt brought to mind was a "This is What a Feminist Looks Like" t-shirt that I bought at a law school fundraiser. The shirts were being sold by the Women's Association of Law Students at the school where I teach. I bought one for my then pre-school aged daughter. She loved it because it was black with bright pink letters, and people would say to her, "Nice t-shirt," the few times she wore it.

She only wore it a few times because I -- who bought the shirt -- decided that it was not a comfortable parenting decision to put a "message" t-shirt on a child, even though the message was one with which both my husband and I felt comfortable. Yes, I explained to my daughter what "feminist" was (in appropriate-to-four-year-old terms: those who want men and women to have the same opportunities) before she wore the shirt, but it still didn't seem right.

Around this time, I had a neighbor who dressed her pre-schooler in t-shirts that read, "Free Martha" [Stewart].

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Feminism and Families | 1 Comment

No-Fault? No Problem in NY

Posted on August 16, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

From the New York Law Journal, this news of significant changes to New York's divorce law. Previously, New York was a "fault" jurisdiction, requiring a finding of adultery, abandonment, cruelty or a 1-year separation pursuant to a written instrument (that, from bar review memory -- thanks, prep course!).

The law, A9753/S3890, which applies to all divorce filings from now on, provides that one spouse can receive a divorce by declaring under oath that a marriage has been "irretrievably" broken for at least six months.

However, other issues related to divorce, such as child custody and distribution of property, must first be resolved by the parties or determined by the court before a marriage can be dissolved.

A 2003 survey by the Family Law Section of the state Bar Association of about 3,000 of section members indicated three-quarters favored a no-fault option in New York. However, the change has been fought by the Roman Catholic Church and the National Organization for Women. * * *

[Governor David] Paterson also signed another bill favored by no-fault divorce advocates, A7569/4532, which requires payment of counsel and experts' fees to the "non-monied" party in a divorce action. Bill sponsors said the measure would level the playing field and allow the spouses—generally the wife—who has made little or no money during a marriage to protect their interests during a divorce.

Finally, Mr. Paterson also indicated that he had signed A10984/S8390, which will establish a schedule for temporary maintenance payments to non-monied spouses as their divorce proceedings move toward finality.

The full article is here.

No-fault divorce is a topic on which intelligent feminist opinion is divided.

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Feminism and Economics, Feminism and Families | Leave a comment

“Hiding-in-Plain-Sight” Facts about Marriage and Parenthood – The California Marriage Case and the Irrelevance of Gender

Posted on August 16, 2010 by lmcclain

At the moment, commentators are busy opining about whether or not the Ninth Circuit will affirm Judge Walker’s decision not to stay his order pending appeal – thus allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry in California -- and, in turn, whether the U.S. Supreme Court will take action. I will not join the fray here on that question (although it seems hard for Prop 8 proponents to argue irreparable harm if the order is not stayed, since Californians have been living with the thousands of civil marriages by same-sex couples, entered into the several month interim between the California Supreme Court’s In re Marriage Cases ruling and voter approval of Prop. 8). Instead, I would like to invite the attention of feminist scholars and anyone else interested in the marriage debate to Judge Walker’s extensive findings of fact as well as his conclusions of law about the irrelevance of gender to marriage and parenthood. These provide an opportunity for public education and commentary about marriage in America.

To that end, Linda Greenhouse, an experienced analyst of the U.S. Supreme Court, posted (last week) an insightful commentary “Hiding in Plain Sight,” in which she praises Judge Walker for “his unveiling of a central hiding-in-plain-sight fact: the change in society’s expectations about what partnership in a marriage entails.” She refers to the gender revolution in family law, noting Judge Walker’s conclusion that “gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligation to each other and to their dependents,” and that “gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.” Without making any predictions, she nonetheless takes the position that if Judge Walker’s opinion survives on appeal, it will be on the basis of his conclusion that to extend marriage to gay men and lesbians will not “redefine marriage,” since marriage has already undergone profound change “as the result of forces completely independent of federal judges.” Although Greenhouse does not mention it, I believe that another “hiding in plain sight” feature of Judge Walker’s opinion concerns the irrelevance of gender to parenthood and to child outcomes, or well-being.

As I noted in an earlier post (here), Judge Walker referred to the requirement of one man-one woman, in Proposition 8, as an “artifact” of an earlier understanding of state-mandated gender roles within marriage. Greenhouse is certainly correct that some of this gender revolution occurred independent of federal judges. However, it is undeniable that the Supreme Court’s rulings of the 1970s and 1980s were one catalyst to the considerable family law reform as legislatures reassessed sex-based classifications about spouses and parents. Social, economic, and cultural transformations surrounding gender roles and women’s place in society as well as state law reform that continued the erosion of coverture begun in the 19th century were other catalysts. Feminist scholars identify the cause and effect problem here – was the Supreme Court breaking new ground or simply catching up with society when it identifying sex-based rules as antiquated and outmoded stereotypes about the capacities of women and men? In either case, Walker’s findings and conclusions about the evolution of marriage away from a marital bargain based on legally fixed gender roles to a partnership of equals resonate with Supreme Court statements (e.g., the joint opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey) repudiating coverture and affirming the equal status of husbands and wives.

Another significant “hiding in plain sight” feature of Judge Walker’s opinion – not brought out by Greenhouse -- concerns the irrelevance of gender to parenthood. From the beginning of the new wave of challenges by same-sex couples to civil marriage laws (say, beginning with Hawaii in the early 1990s), defenders of the one man-one woman requirement appealed to arguments about optimal childrearing: marriage provides the best environment for children by securing to the child a married biological mother and father. However, even in the Hawaii litigation, the government failed to support this argument and its expert witnesses conceded the competence of gay and lesbian parents. This optimal child rearing argument lost in several other states, such as Vermont and Massachusetts. (To be sure, it has prevailed in some other courts, including Hernandez v. Robles, when New York’s high court made some common sense observations about the value of a child having male and female role models.) And the Obama Administration disavowed the optimal childrearing interest in the ongoing litigation over DOMA.

Now, Judge Walker provides the most extensive findings of fact to date on the question of the relationship between sexual orientation and parenting. Based on what he found to be credible expert testimony (including that of Michael Lamb), which summarized the state of knowledge on this issue, he concluded that sexual orientation is not relevant to child outcomes. Walker also noted the introduction into evidence testimony by Prop 8 proponents’ own expert witnesses as to the basic competence of gay and lesbian parents. He also made a very important clarifying observation about social science and the relevant basis of comparison: studies relied upon by Prop 8 proponents’ expert did not compare children reared in opposite-sex marital homes with those raised by same-sex couples, but instead compared marital homes with single-parent, divorced, and foster families. Moreover, he concluded, while these studies might tell us something about the significance of marriage as a variable, they do not isolate genetics or biology or sexual orientation as a factor.

Looking at the relevant available studies, as presented by Prop 8 opponents’ experts, Judge Walker found that children raised by gay men and lesbians “are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents.” Moreover, “children of gay and lesbian parents would benefit if their parents were able to marry.” As his opinion recounts, the campaign for Prop. 8 frequently appealed to claims about gender complementary and the special and unique contributions of a mother and a father. Often, these complementarity arguments stem from a belief in God’s created order and the proper roles of men and women. (Similar arguments featured, as I have written elsewhere, in Congress in support of the Defense of Marriage Act.) However, Judge Walker concluded: “the evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes.” Like a number of other states, moreover, California has taken steps to encourage and facilitate parenthood by gay men and lesbians (including making the parental rights and responsibilities of domestic partners the same as married parents, allowing second parent adoption and the use of assisted reproductive technology, and enforcing child support obligations against a nonbiological parent in a same-sex couple), thus undercutting the argument that optimal childrearing requires a biological mother and father and that that is the only pathway to parenthood that the state supports or recognizes. Given that the state’s interest in marriage includes forming stable households, Prop 8, he concluded, undermines that interest. Like the Massachusetts high court in Goodridge, Judge Walker concludes that withholding marriage’s protective framework from gay and lesbian parents harms these families; by contrast, extending that framework does not harm the families formed by opposite-sex couple marriages.

Greenhouse helpfully suggests that, whatever the ultimate fate of Judge Walker’s ruling on appeal, “the real contribution” of Judge Walker’s opinion may be to enrich and better inform “public conversation” about marriage. She has a point. In particular, the opinion provides ample resources for unearthing what might otherwise have been “hiding-in-plain-sight” facts about the significance of gender for contemporary marriage and parenthood.

-Linda McClain

Posted in Feminism and Families, LGBT Rights | 1 Comment

Buzuvis on “Transgender Student-Athletes and Sex-Segregated Sport: Developing Policies of Inclusion for Intercollegiate and Interscholastic Athletics”

Posted on August 13, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

Erin Buzuvis (Western New England) has posted to SSRN her working paper, "Transgender Student-Athletes and Sex-Segregated Sport: Developing Policies of Inclusion for Intercollegiate and Interscholastic Athletics." Here is the abstract:

Educators have long recognized the physical, psychological, social, and educational benefits that sport provides to students. Yet today, the barriers to athletic participation that exclude the increasingly visible population of transgender students are largely ignored. With a few notable exceptions, most governing bodies of scholastic and collegiate sports have yet to meaningfully consider how to incorporate transgender students into the existing athletic structure, which for the most part divides male and female athletes into separate programs. Many athletes and sport organizers assume that transgender athletes have an unfair advantage when they compete in sports consistent with their gender identity, whether due to residual, natural physical traits associated with their natal sex (in the case of male-born, female-identified athletes), or with the hormone therapy transition (in the case of female-born, male-identified athletes). At the same time, transgender students may be excluded, discouraged, or simply feel uncomfortable participating in athletics programs that match the sex of their birth but which are inconsistent with their gender identity and gender expression. As a result, for students whose gender identity is inconsistent with their natal sex, the entire sex-segregated world of athletics may be formally or effectively off limits.

A few associations of educational institutions have responded to this problem by adopting policies governing transgender athlete participation. After describing, contrasting, and evaluating these policies, this Article concludes that the best policies are those that, as a general rule, allow athletes to participate in sex-segregated sport in a manner consistent with their gender identity rather than their natal sex. In support of this conclusion, this paper will show that neither law nor science gives clear, dispositive guidance to policymakers seeking to balance the right of transgender athletes to participate with the perceived fairness concerns related to their cross-sex participation. Thus, educational considerations should play a primary role in creating participation policies. These considerations include the physical, academic, and socio-emotional benefits to individual athletes as well as the value that diversity brings to teams, schools, and communities. To best serve these goals, which educators claim as the basis for educationally-supported athletics in the first place, policies governing secondary school and college athletics should allow athletes to participate in a manner consistent with their genuine gender identity. Any exceptions or limitations to this default rule must be made with educational values in mind, and must be narrowly tailored to demonstrable, concrete concerns about fairness.

The full paper is available here.

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Feminism and Sports, LGBT Rights | Leave a comment

Will the Prop 8 Case Be Moot Before It Gets to the Supreme Court?

Posted on August 12, 2010 by David S. Cohen

Following last week's decision finding that California's Prop 8 was unconstitutional, much of the talk centered around what the Supreme Court would do when presented with the question whether a ban on same-sex marriage was constitutional. The thinking is that the Ninth Circuit will hear the case and, especially if the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's finding of unconstitutionality, the Supreme Court would enter the fray.

However, I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that, even though the Supreme Court will probably enter this debate at some point in the future, this particular case will probably be moot by the time the Supreme Court would decide.

Prop 8 opponents have organized a campaign to get marriage back on the ballot in California. After much debate in the LGBT community, the decision was made to push for a marriage ballot resolution in 2012 (rather than 2010). So, in two years, Californians will once again vote on whether same-sex couples can marry.

Why the confidence that a marriage resolution in 2012 will result in same-sex marriage when the marriage resolution in 2008 rejected it? Yesterday's news from CNN illustrates it. For the first time in a serious national poll, gay marriage polled majority support. The position in favor of equality has momentum at its back.

Not only is there momentum, but there's also demographics. Gay marriage has much more support by younger voters than older voters. Four years is enough to make a huge difference in this regard, as older voters die off and younger people become voters (or, if voting age already, become more consistent voters).

Thus, in November 2012, I think it's a pretty good bet that the voters of California will vote for same-sex marriage. They voted down same-sex marriage in 2008 by only 4 points. In 2012, they'll probably vote in favor of same-sex marriage by a small, but definite margin. Prop 8 will be history. Assuming a normal appeals process, involving a panel of the Ninth Circuit, an en banc review by the Ninth Circuit, then a certiorari petition to the Supreme Court, followed by briefing and argument, I just can't imagine the Supreme Court deciding before November 2012.

And by that time, the case will be moot, as justice will already have been attained through the ballot box.

Cross-posted at the Faculty Lounge.

Posted in Feminism and Law, LGBT Rights | Leave a comment

Tenure-Track Positions at Nebraska

Posted on August 12, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

From Anna Shavers (Nebraska):

The University of Nebraska College of Law invites applications for three tenure-track faculty positions. Areas of particular interest include business associations, corporate finance and governance, transactional skills courses, securitization, venture capital, entrepreneurship, patents, trusts and estates, federal estate and gift tax, elder law, public health law, food and drug law, conflict of laws, government contracts, cyber security, military law, and space law and telecommunications law. (Courses in space and telecommunications law are offered to J.D. students as well as LL.M. students in the College of Law’s new Space and Telecommunications Law program that began in 2008.) Review of applications will begin on August 12, 2010 and continue until the positions are filled. General information about the Law College is available here. Information on the Space and Telecommunications Law program can be found here.

The University of Nebraska has an active National Science Foundation ADVANCE gender equity program, and is committed to a pluralistic campus community through affirmative action, equal opportunity, work-life balance, and dual careers.

Contact Professor Richard Moberly, Chair, Faculty Appointments Committee, University of Nebraska College of Law, Lincoln, NE 68583-0902, or send email to lawappointments@unl.edu.

The Nebraska faculty has made some very smart hires in the last few years, IMHO, and it looks like they are committed to growing the faculty.

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Law Teaching | Leave a comment

Above the Law asks whether women in the law need thicker skins

Posted on August 12, 2010 by lgoodmark

As I read this post from Above the Law, I found myself thinking about Professor Felice Batlan and the law students from Chicago-Kent who presented their study, Not Our Mother's Law Students?: A Feminist Study of Women's Experiences in Law School, at our first Feminist Legal Theory conference back in 2008. It's unbelievable how differently people can perceive the world.

Leigh Goodmark

Posted in Academia | Leave a comment

Middle Men’s Tax Angle

Posted on August 11, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

This week, I saw the movie "Middle Men" starring Luke Wilson and Giovanni Ribisi. I won't spoil the ending, but income tax considerations -- and a collective desire to outwit the "tax man" -- play a huge role in the fate of one of the characters (and not in the Al Capone-ish way one might expect). Here's the synopsis of the movie:

In 1995, everyone had a VCR, music was sold in record stores, and the world-wide-web was a new found discovery. Businessman Jack Harris (Luke Wilson) had the perfect life - a beautiful family and a successful career fixing problem companies. Then he met Wayne Beering (Giovanni Ribisi) and Buck Dolby (Gabriel Macht), two genius but troubled men, who had invented the way adult entertainment is sold over the internet. When Jack agrees to help steer their business, he soon finds himself caught between a 23 year-old porn star and the FBI all the while becoming one of the wealthiest entrepreneurs of his time. Witness a story so outrageous, you won't believe it's true.

From the website here.

There's lots more to say about the film, including its multiple references to the role that "mainstream" hotels play in the distribution and consumption of pornography. There's even a subplot involving the role of internet pornography in tracking terrorist suspects. But for now, suffice to say that income taxes are outcome determinative.

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Feminism and Culture | Leave a comment

Adding Up the Problems at HP

Posted on August 11, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

Analyses of the departure of HP CEO Mark Hurd has been cryptic and under-reported (see, e.g., the NYT coverage here and here). The HP board found that reality TV personality Jodie Fisher's claims of sexual harassment were unsubstantiated, but that Hurd violated the company's "standards of business conduct." Huh? Pcworld.com Tech Industry columnist Thomas Wailgum puts it this way:

Most of us are aware of the booth babes phenomenon at high-tech trade shows and continuing debate about their presence. But should we be shocked to learn that, from 2007 to 2009, HP's marketing department paid Jodie Fisher "up to $5,000 per event to greet people and make introductions among executives attending HP events that she helped organize," according to one report? Another article claimed up to $10,000 in pay per event.

Just what kind of events required this type of hostess? Customer and CEO dinners only? Does HP still employ other female event greeters—and why are they needed at all? There's a fine line between "event organizer" and "a female hostess paid to look pretty and laugh at all the executives' dumb jokes." Aren't there plenty of smart, personable managers and execs already working at HP who could have done meet-and-greet work at events? Or just not enough of the types who had appeared on reality TV?

Wailgum's full column is available here. I'm not crazy about the "booth babe" reference, but it certainly makes the point.

The claim that the HP board sought Hurd's resignation because of "a break in trust caused by his falsifying expense reports to conceal the relationship" (source: here) doesn't add up. She attended corporate events and had dinners with Hurd, presumably not in secret. Was it really news to the board that Fisher was being paid? Or is it that the sexual harassment claim (judged by the board to be "baseless") wasn't so baseless after all? Or is just embarrassing to the corporation to have it revealed that pretty women are paid to make male executives happy and comfortable at these events?

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Sexual Harassment | Leave a comment

ABA Resolution on Same-Sex Marriage

Posted on August 11, 2010 by rrobson

The ABA overwhelmingly adopted a resolution urging state (as well as territorial and tribal) governments to permit same-sex marriage:

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges state, territorial, and tribal governments to eliminate all of their legal barriers to civil marriage between two persons of the same sex who are otherwise eligible to marry.

The Resolution was supported by the ABA Commission on Women in the Profession, as well as by the ABA Young Lawyers Division, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, and the ABA Commission on Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Profession.

More information here.

- Ruthann Robson

Posted in Feminism and Families, LGBT Rights | Leave a comment

Taking Bond’s Women Seriously

Posted on August 9, 2010 by Christine Corcos

Kimberly A. Neuendorf, Thomas D. Gore, Amy Dalessandro, Patricie Janstova, and Sharon Snyder-Suhy have published Shaken and Stirred: A Content Analysis of Women’s Portrayals in James Bond Films at 62 Sex Roles 747-761 (2010). Here's the abstract.

A quantitative content analysis of 20 James Bond
films assessed portrayals of 195 female characters. Key
findings include a trend of more sexual activity and greater
harm to females over time, but few significant across-time
differences in demographic characteristics of Bond women.
Sexual activity is predicted by race, attractiveness, size of
role, and aggressive behaviors. Being a target of weapons is
predicted by size of role, sexual activity, and weapon use,
while being harmed is predicted principally by role. End-offilm
mortality is predicted by sexual activity, ethical status
(good vs. bad), and attempting to kill Bond. This identification
of a link between sexuality and violent behavior is
noted as a contribution to the media and sex roles literatures.

Posted in Academia | 1 Comment

Mayor Bloomberg on Tolerance

Posted on August 6, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

The proposed construction of a Muslim community center and mosque in Lower Manhattan has received national media attention. Earlier this week, Mayor Michael Bloomberg made a tremendous plea for tolerance. It is one of the best political speeches I have heard in a long time. Below is the video, followed by the text.

“We've come here to Governors Island to stand where the earliest settlers first set foot in New Amsterdam, and where the seeds of religious tolerance were first planted. We come here to see the inspiring symbol of liberty that more than 250 years later would greet millions of immigrants in this harbor. And we come here to state as strongly as ever, this is the freest city in the world. That's what makes New York special and different and strong.

“Our doors are open to everyone. Everyone with a dream and a willingness to work hard and play by the rules. New York City was built by immigrants, and it's sustained by immigrants -- by people from more than 100 different countries speaking more than 200 different languages and professing every faith. And whether your parents were born here or you came here yesterday, you are a New Yorker.

“We may not always agree with every one of our neighbors. That's life. And it's part of living in such a diverse and dense city. But we also recognize that part of being a New Yorker is living with your neighbors in mutual respect and tolerance. It was exactly that spirit of openness and acceptance that was attacked on 9/11, 2001.

“On that day, 3,000 people were killed because some murderous fanatics didn't want us to enjoy the freedoms to profess our own faiths, to speak our own minds, to follow our own dreams, and to live our own lives. Of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish. And it is a freedom that even here -- in a city that is rooted in Dutch tolerance -- was hard-won over many years.

“In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue, and they were turned down. In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion. It was perhaps the first formal political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies, and the organizer was thrown in jail and then banished from New Amsterdam.

“In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion, and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780s, St. Peter's on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site, and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center.

“This morning, the city's Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted to extend -- not to extend -- landmark status to the building on Park Place where the mosque and community center are planned. The decision was based solely on the fact that there was little architectural significance to the building. But with or without landmark designation, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building.

“The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

“Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

“This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.

“Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies' hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.

"For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetimes, as important a test. And it is critically important that we get it right.

"On Sept. 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked, 'What God do you pray to?' (Bloomberg's voice cracks here a little as he gets choked up.) 'What beliefs do you hold?'

"The attack was an act of war, and our first responders defended not only our city, but our country and our constitution. We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.

"Of course, it is fair to ask the organizers of the mosque to show some special sensitivity to the situation, and in fact their plan envisions reaching beyond their walls and building an interfaith community. But doing so, it is my hope that the mosque will help to bring our city even closer together, and help repudiate the false and repugnant idea that the attacks of 9/11 were in any ways consistent with Islam.

"Muslims are as much a part of our city and our country as the people of any faith. And they are as welcome to worship in lower Manhattan as any other group. In fact, they have been worshipping at the site for better, the better part of a year, as is their right. The local community board in lower Manhattan voted overwhelmingly to support the proposal. And if it moves forward, I expect the community center and mosque will add to the life and vitality of the neighborhood and the entire city.

"Political controversies come and go, but our values and our traditions endure, and there is no neighborhood in this city that is off-limits to God's love and mercy, as the religious leaders here with us can attest."

The text comes from the Daily News (here).

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Feminism and Religion | 1 Comment

Eggsploitation and Abortion Politics

Posted on August 6, 2010 by Richard Storrow

“Eggsploitation,” a new documentary about the perils faced by egg providers in the increasingly globalized and highly lucrative infertility business opens Sunday at the Little Theatre in Rochester. Taking a no-holds-barred approach, “Eggsploitation” exposes what happens to young women who are objectified as sources of eggs by an industry os ay satisfying the ever expanding demand for in vitro fertilization. Although “Eggsploitation” should be a feminist documentary, it is not.

Egg providers have existed in the shadows since the dawn of IVF treatment. Nothing short of shock tactics could properly place the reality of their situation in the public eye. For this reason, “Eggsploitation” is unapologetically over the top. A haunting soundtrack groans in the background as young women tell their tragic stories of being lured by their desire to help others into lives diminished by ongoing medical complications and permanent disability, including os ay and infertility itself. Confronted with the dangers of egg extraction, the conflicts of interests of physicians, and the hyper-commercialized setting in which infertility practice takes place, we are justifiably outraged that what we’re seeing is business as usual for infertility clinics in the United States.

Despite its upsides in bringing eggsploitation to light, “Eggsploitation” makes a fatal misstep by including in its parade of experts those whose agendas are far from feminist. This occurs when the documentary ventures, as did its companion documentary “Lines that Divide,” into the controversial realm of embryonic stem cell research using cloning techniques. Unlike research on embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization, research cloning requires an enormous number of human eggs. Scientists who support research cloning want women who now sell eggs to the infertility industry to be allowed to sell them for research, too. Opponents of research cloning are rightly concerned about eggsploitation, but some of these critics also oppose ALL embryonic stem cell research because they believe an embryo is a human being. Picking sides in this debate is a tricky business because at its root “the stem cell debate is a battle over abortion.”

The role of “Eggsploitation” in this battle is made obvious by the appearance of Josephine Quintavalle of the Christian pro-life organization Comment on Reproductive Ethics (CORE). Although CORE denounces sex selection and research using cloned embryos, the basis for the positions it takes is “absolute respect for the human embryo,” not women’s rights. Although Quintavalle appears to be earnest about protecting young women from eggsploitation, she would unconditionally deny women to the right to an abortion. A little over one month ago, on British national television, Quintavalle was heard to say, “I object to all abortions. If it’s a human life it doesn’t matter at what stage you’re talking about terminating. It shouldn’t happen.”

It is dismaying that the Center for Bioethics and Culture, which produced “Eggsploitation,” did not alert its viewers to the anti-feminist viewpoints held by those it chose to present as experts on a topic that requires a feminist sensibility. Perhaps it was an oversight. If so, “Eggsploitation” may unwittingly be playing into the hands of the religious right.

-Richard Storrow

image source: www.cbc-network.org

Posted in Reproductive Rights | Leave a comment

Western Wars v. Muslim Women

Posted on August 6, 2010 by cyrachoudhury

This is a topic with which I am constantly engaged so it was surprising to find it in the news (though a blog entry only). The article makes the point that wars in places like Afghanistan and Iraq that have been partially justified through the discourse of liberating Muslim women have in reality done little to secure their future and their rights. Although I would not be so quick to dismiss the conflict there as having had no positive effects, I think it is worth noting the costs and also the ways in which the conflict has silenced certain groups of women. Most important is the difficulty of Muslim women in these zones who must navigate a war that pits their rights to equality in opposition to their culture and also characterizes their fathers, brothers, husbands and sons as the villains of the piece while disregarding the effects of foreign intervention.

Western wars vs. Muslim women

Western media is awash with reports about Taliban mistreatment of women in Afghanistan and Pakistan that feature countless voices in support of the war to secure a 'brighter future for women's rights'. This week's Time magazine cover story is a case in point.

If Western wars 'liberate' Eastern women, Muslim women would be - after centuries of Western military interventions - the most 'liberated' in the world. They are not, and will not be, especially when liberty is associated with Western hegemony.

Afghanistan has had its share of British, Russian and American military intervention to no avail. In fact, reports from credible women's groups there signal worsening conditions for Aghan women since the US invasion a decade ago.

The Taliban's social norms might be an affront to modern values, but they cannot be replaced summarily with Western values, let alone by force.

Despite the fact that the Bush administration's use of women's rights has been discredited, Muslim women's plight still serves a humanitarian-based legitimizing function for the war. Read more here.

-- Cyra Akila Choudhury

Posted in Academia | Leave a comment

Robin Runge’s Upcoming Radio Appearance on “Domestic Violence and the Law: China vs. the U.S.A”

Posted on August 5, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

On Sunday, August 8, 2010, at 5:00 p.m. (Central), Feminist Law Prof Robin Runge (North Dakota) will appear on Prairie Public radio station's "Why?" program talking about her work in China on violence against women.

Here's the station's official description of the upcoming program:

In March of 2010, Robin Runge traveled to Beijing to train Chinese judges to better deal with issues of domestic violence in the law; this was her second such visit. In comparing the Chinese and American systems, she has able to see those areas in which American law better responds to the needs of the community and those areas in which the Chinese system does. In this episode of Why? we will discuss her experiences and address central questions in the philosophy of law. What counts as evidence? How ought the court deal with a he said/she said situation? In what ways can judges work with the police to promote better investigations? How do cultural differences affect legal frameworks, and to what extent is domestic violence a violation of human rights?

Robin R. Runge is an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law where she teaches in the Employment and Housing Law Clinic. Professor Runge taught public interest lawyering and domestic violence law at The George Washington University Law School, and domestic violence law at The American University Washington College of Law. From 2003 to 2009, Professor Runge was Director of the Commission on Domestic Violence at the American Bar Association where she managed all aspects of Commission programming including developing training curricula for attorneys, writing articles and speaking domestically and internationally on various aspects of domestic violence and the legal response to domestic violence including the employment rights of domestic violence victims. Previously, Professor Runge was Deputy Director and Coordinator of the Program on Women’s Employment Rights (POWER) at the D.C. Employment Justice Center and the Coordinator of the Domestic Violence and Employment Project at the Employment Law Center, Legal Aid Society of San Francisco.

Have a question you want to ask Robin in advance, or don’t want your voice on the air? Send it to us at: askwhy@und.edu.

On Sunday, the digital stream will be available here. To catch the interview as a podcast, enter this URL into your podcast app.

This sounds like a great program!

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Acts of Violence, Feminism and Families, Sisters In Other Nations | Leave a comment

Gender “Artifacts,” Sex Discrimination, and the California Marriage Decision

Posted on August 5, 2010 by lmcclain

Combing through Judge Vaughan Walker's lengthy and momentous findings of fact and conclusions of law in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, in which he held that California's Proposition 8 offends both federal due process and equal protection rights of same-sex couples, I find much with which to be impressed. But just a quick note on a particularly interesting and promising part of the opinion. Judge Walker refers to the one man-one woman marriage rule as a gender 'artifact,' a leftover from the era in which the state required fixed gender roles as part of marital status as a husband or wife. If and when this opinion makes it before the Supreme Court, this part of Judge Walker's opinion provides a ready avenue for Justice Ginsburg and like-minded justices to affirm on the ground that restricting civil marriage to opposite sex couples rests on gender role stereotypes from an earlier era.

Aided by expert testimony of historian Nancy Cott, Judge Walker carefully reviews how marriage laws used to mandate different roles for men and women and how California, like other states, has abolished all such restrictions EXCEPT the one requiring that civil marriage be the union of one man and one woman. This provides a powerful line of argument because the U.S. Supreme Court has previously struck down laws rooted in gender role stereotypes rather than 'real' differences between the sexes. And it has made clear (for example, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey) that coverture and other gendered rules of marriage do not reflect contemporary understandings of the federal constitution, the family, or of the rights of women and men.

Judge Walker further concludes that appeals to 'tradition' alone cannot justify the continued application of this different genders rule. This is a potentially powerful argument since, as his opinion points out, both bars on interracial marriage and fixed gender roles in marriage were defended at the time as central to marriage and yet were also repudiated as inconsistent with evolving understandings of marriage. Over the years, feminist scholars (here I include myself as well as, no doubt, other contributors to and readers of this blog) have argued that a gender equality/sex discriminationargument might be a powerful way to challenge the ban on same-sex marriage. And we have seen the argument floated in various state court opinions.

But now, as this California litigation raises the question of federal grounds on which to challenge a state bar on same-sex marriage, this federal court opinion lays out the argument very clearly.

What do you think?

-Linda McClain

Posted in Feminism and Families, LGBT Rights | 1 Comment

Notice of Faculty Positions at Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis

Posted on August 4, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW-INDIANAPOLIS invites applications from entry-level and experienced candidates for tenure-track and tenured appointments beginning in the 2011-2012 academic year. The law school seeks colleagues with distinguished academic records who are committed to excellence in teaching, scholarship, and service. Our curricular needs include Torts, Criminal Law and Procedure, Evidence, Commercial Law, Conflict of Laws, Trusts and Estates and Tax.

Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis also anticipates making a long-term contract clinical appointment for 2011-2012. Candidates with clinical teaching experience in the civil area and with at least five years of practice experience are encouraged to apply. The appointment requires an Indiana law license or the ability to be licensed to practice law in Indiana upon appointment. It is possible that this appointment might include administrative duties with respect to experiential learning.

We are strongly committed to achieving excellence through intellectual diversity and strongly encourage applications from persons of color, women, persons with disabilities, the LGBT community, and members of other groups that are under-represented on university faculties. The law school is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Institution and offers domestic partner benefits. For more information about the school, visit http://indylaw.indiana.edu/. To apply, contact Professor María Pabón López, Chair, Faculty Recruitment Committee, Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis, 530 West New York Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202-3225; (317) 278-8440; facapps@iupui.edu. Individuals who require a reasonable accommodation in order to participate in the application process must notify Professor López a reasonable time in advance.

Posted in Law Teaching | Leave a comment

Congratulations to Professor Lolita Buckner Inniss

Posted on August 4, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

Congratulations to Professor Lolita Buckner Inniss (Cleveland Marshall) who has been named Joseph C. Hostetler-Baker & Hostetler Chair in Law!

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Chutes and Ladders | Leave a comment

2010 Carrie Chapman Catt Prize for Research on Women and Politics – Deadline December 1, 2010

Posted on August 4, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

From the Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics at Iowa State:

The Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics is pleased to announce the competition for the 2010 Carrie Chapman Catt Prize for Research on Women and Politics. This annual competition is designed to encourage and reward scholars embarking on significant research in the area of women and politics. Numerous proposals from a variety of academic disciplines are
received each year. Proposals are blind-reviewed by a selection committee comprised of faculty and researchers in the disciplines represented. The prize includes a $1,000 cash award for each project selected. Honorable mention prizes of $500 per project are sometimes given.

Proposals for the 2010 Carrie Chapman Catt Prize for Research on Women and Politics must be postmarked by Dec. 1, 2010. Research projects submitted for prize consideration can address any topic related to women and politics. Scholars at any level, including graduate students and junior faculty members, can apply.

To be considered for the 2010 prize, applicants should submit, postmarked by Dec. 1, 2010:

(A) Four (4) copies of a detailed description (5 to 10 pages, double spaced, in 12 point font) of the research project
including a (1) project title; (2) 150-200 word abstract summarizing its purpose and content; (3) discussion of relevant theory, contributions to literature in the field, and methodology; (4) statement about how the Catt Prize will contribute to the research project; and (5) timetable for completion of the project. As the proposals will be blind-reviewed by a committee, the author(s) name(s) should not appear in this description.

(B) A detachable cover sheet that lists the name, institutional affiliation and contact information (one mailing address – office or home, telephone, and e-mail for spring 2011) for each author.

(C) A one-page (or less) biographical statement for each author, highlighting her/ his research interests, significant publications and/or presentations, and professional interests and experiences related to the project.

Awards will be announced by February 2011. Winners of the Carrie Chapman Catt Prize for Research on Women and Politics are to acknowledge their honor when their research results are published and to transmit one copy of each publication for the center’s archives.

Materials should be mailed (not faxed or e-mailed) to:

Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics

309 Carrie Chapman Catt Hall

Iowa State University

Ames, IA, 50011-1305.

For more information, contact the center at cattcntr@iastate.edu or at 515-294-3181

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Fellowships and Funding Opportunities | Leave a comment

AALS Women in Legal Education: Calls for Participation, Papers, Posters – Deadline Extended

Posted on August 3, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

From the Planning Committee for 2011 Workshop on Women Rethinking Equality, these further details on the program, with some new deadlines for responses to the calls:

In response to the Call for Presentations, Papers and Posters that we circulated in early June, 2010, we have had a number of inquiries regarding how the Call relates to the "Women Rethinking Equality" Workshop as a whole. We aim, in this Final Reminder, to set the Call in the context of the larger event. Because this broader description may encourage new submissions, we have extended the deadline for Presentation and Paper proposals by one week, to August 6, 2010.

The Workshop will be held in June, 2011 in Washington, DC, and it will appeal to a full range of teachers and scholars in all subject areas. We welcome participation by all AALS members-and particularly all women-regardless of whether their scholarship focuses on gender. We hope to have a conference of panelists and attendees that is filled with diversity on many fronts-race, sexuality, able-bodiedness, viewpoint, politics, field, and childhood class background-to name just a few.

Women seeking equality in America today face uneven prospects. Women are represented in record numbers in all branches of government, yet also struggle in unprecedented numbers below the poverty line, and they remain notably absent from many corporate boardrooms. Two more women have been appointed to the Supreme Court, including the first Latina justice; yet the popular debate and confirmation hearings were marred by race and gender stereotypes and by homophobia. Advocates of same sex marriage and new reproductive technologies have challenged the traditional family, yet they have been met by efforts to re-naturalize marriage, childbirth, and the place of women in the private sphere. These same contradictions mark women's role in legal education. Women comprise a majority of students in many law schools, yet women are not equally represented in the professoriate. A recent AALS Report revealed a "tenure gap" affecting all women, which was particularly wide and increasing for women of color. The predominance of women in lower-paid, lower status positions without job security in the legal academy mirrors their relative absence from top positions in law firms, law faculties, and other highly-paid legal positions.

As we address the unfinished business of equality, women confront complex challenges. Some impediments stem from a public perception that the central problems of women's equality were solved a generation ago. Other obstacles-which women are often reluctant to confront-arise from the heterogeneity of the group itself. We are heterogeneous first in the ways we experience our lives as women: women share commonalities based on sex, while also differing along lines of race, ethnicity, class, immigration status, religion, sexual orientation, and disability. Women also vary in our conceptualizations of the challenges we face: while some theorists and activists emphasize the varied forms of exclusion and hierarchy that constitute "subordination," others emphasize pressures to conform to bifurcated gender norms, to expectations of cross-sex sexual desires and the fulfillment of these desires within marital, nuclear, reproductive families. Finally we are heterogeneous in our personal and professional aspirations: while some women seek to analyze sex or gender in explicitly politicized ways, others may be reluctant to use formalized constructs to discuss them, and may prefer to emphasize practice strategies for addressing the effects of gender in our daily lives or individual workplaces. Such heterogeneity is hardly surprising in a group that includes more than half of the human race. Yet if women fail to understand and negotiate this heterogeneity in a self-aware, reflective way, we may end up chasing an elusive unity, or diffusing our efforts with unnecessary friction.

The 2011 Mid-Year Meeting, "Women Rethinking Equality," will address these challenges, in the broader society and in the specific context of legal education. In analyzing the remaining barriers, we will think specifically about how to understand and to bridge the heterogeneity our group reflects-by glimpsing our shared stake in struggles of particular subgroups, and by focusing on the immediate institutional environment that we all share. We will also ask how we might use many kinds of connections among women-networking, mentoring, sharing of information-to secure greater opportunity, and transform the institutional settings in which we live and work. We will examine these themes in a series of plenary panels, addressed to such issues as "The Unfinished Business of Sex Equality in Legal Education," "Meanings and Contexts of Equality," "Women as Scholars" and "Women as Teachers." But we also seek to diversify our discussions by organizing some of our conference sessions through Calls for Presentations, Papers, and Posters.

Specifically, we plan to include posters and two types of concurrent sessions. The first type of concurrent session will feature presentations related to one of nine equality-related themes, and the second will provide an opportunity for scholars to receive detailed feedback on works-in-progress.

Call for Presentations on Specific Workshop Themes

The first type of concurrent session will feature presentations on each of the following equality-related themes:

· Gender and International Human Rights

· From Reproductive Rights to Reproductive Justice

· Gender and Economic Inequality

· Gender and Criminal Law

· Gender and Corporate, Securities, Tax, Bankruptcy and Commercial Law

· Gender and the Justice System

· Theorizing Gender

· Gender and Family Law

· Gender and Employment

We expect to select three or four presentations for each of these topical sessions. Each presentation will be about 15 minutes, followed by questions from the moderator and the audience.

Interested faculty should submit a brief written description (no more than 1000 words) of the proposed presentation, along with her or his résumé. The proposal should indicate clearly in which of the nine categories the author believes the presentation belongs. Please email these materials to 11wwcfp@aals.org by August 6, 2010. We will notify selected speakers by October 1, 2010.

Call for Papers

Women write in all fields of law, yet women at all stages of their careers who write in male-dominated fields may have fewer opportunities to present and receive feedback on their work. The same is true of junior women scholars across all academic specialties. Additionally, female and male scholars in gender and feminist jurisprudence often find their work marginalized within traditional academic disciplines and institutions. This call for papers invites scholars from these categories to present their works-in-progress and to receive comments in small group sessions with assigned commentators. Because the goal is to give these scholars more exposure, no subject matter preferences govern this call. Full drafts or nearly completed drafts are encouraged, although these drafts may be rough.

Interested faculty should submit a précis of the paper she or he would like to present, along with her or his résumé. The précis should be no more than 2500 words. Please e-mail these materials to 11wwcfp@aals.org by August 6, 2010. We will notify selected authors by October 1, 2010.

Call for Posters

Finally, the Planning Committee seeks poster presentations. Posters are intended to provide authors an opportunity to present in clear and succinct fashion the thesis and conclusion of their research or to describe teaching innovations. We invite submissions in the following veins: (a) submissions by women scholars regarding current projects on any topic or recently completed projects (including, for example, book projects published within the past two years) and (b) submissions by all scholars, regardless of gender, focusing on current or very recent projects regarding issues of gender or sex. Fliers or other advertising may not be displayed with posters. Also, posters that primarily promote a particular school's project or program are not eligible for display. Scholars whose posters are selected for presentation must attend the poster presentation session at this 2011 Mid-Year Meeting.

Interested faculty should submit an abstract for the proposed poster, along with her or his résumé, to 11wwcfp@aals.org by December 15, 2010. We will notify those selected to present posters by January 31, 2011.

Eligibility

Faculty members and professional staff of AALS member and fee-paid law schools are eligible to submit proposals for either of the presentation opportunities or for posters. Foreign, visiting and adjunct faculty members, graduate students, and fellows are not eligible.

Those selected for paper, presentation, or poster opportunity must register for the Workshop and pay the registration fee. Each is also responsible for his or her own travel and other expenses. Please direct questions to Professor Kathryn Abrams, University of California, Berkeley Law at krabrams@law.berkeley.edu; Professor Serena Mayeri, University of Pennsylvania Law School at smayeri@law.upenn.edu; Professor Elizabeth Nowicki, Tulane University Law School at enowicki@tulane.edu; Professor Angela Onwuachi-Willig, University of Iowa College of Law at angela-onwuachi@uiowa.edu; Professor Lisa R. Pruitt, University of California, Davis, School of Law at lrpruitt@ucdavis.edu; or Professor Stephanie M. Wildman, Santa Clara University School of Law at swildman@scu.edu.

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Call for Papers or Participation | Leave a comment

Robson Op-Ed: “Answers Found in the 10th Amendment”

Posted on August 3, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

On July 30, 2010, the LA Times published this op-ed by Feminist Law Prof Ruthann Robson (CUNY):

Answers Found in the 10th Amendment

The words of the Constitution do not change whether they are being applied to immigration or same-sex marriage, or whether the statute is from California, Massachusetts or Arizona. The 10th Amendment is often cited to support the constitutionality of Arizona's immigration law as a matter of "states' rights." That same 10th Amendment is cited to support the unconstitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of Massachusetts' same-sex marriages. To agree with one outcome and not the other can be misconstrued as partisan. If the 10th Amendment is good for the goose, it must be good for the gander, although whether conservatives or liberals are ganders is a bit unclear.

But though it may seem that the neutral principles expressed in the 10th Amendment demand uniform results, this isn't quite true. The amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." And therein lies the rub. What powers are delegated to the federal government by the Constitution? And which are not? And how do we decide?

The text of the Constitution is the obvious place to start. The Constitution provides that the federal government has powers of "naturalization" and regulating commerce with foreign nations (Article I, Section 8). It also prohibits states from entering treaties (Article I, Section 10). While immigration (as opposed to citizenship after immigration) is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, there is a provision that comes close. Article I, Section 9 specifically limits congressional power: "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

The provision is, of course, rooted in the slave trade. But by limiting congressional power until a certain date — 1808 — the implication is clear that migration of persons was intended to be an ordinary federal, rather than state, power.

In addition to the text, the history of constitutional interpretation is another guidepost to who has what powers. The DOMA litigation is not the first time Massachusetts has relied on the 10th Amendment. Massachusetts passed a statute barring state vendors from doing business with Myanmar (previously Burma). The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down the statute under the "supremacy clause," not even mentioning the 10th Amendment. It was sufficient that there were presidential and congressional powers to develop a comprehensive national and international strategy.

Marriage, of course, does not appear in the Constitution, so judicial interpretation is where we find guidance on this issue. The federal courts shy away from family law. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared only a handful of state marriage laws unconstitutional, the most famous example being the Virginia statute criminalizing interracial marriage. But when striking down congressional statutes, the high court has repeatedly touted marriage and family law as the unquestionable domain of state, rather than federal, power. No matter how contentious they may seem, divorces and child custody disputes rarely become federal cases.

Finally, there are also our common practices and understandings about the difference between immigration and marriage. If you have a passport, its navy blue cover bears the seal "United States of America," not, for example, Colorado or California. You need not present your passport when you cross the George Washington Bridge or the Hoover Dam. On the other hand, if you have a marriage certificate, it is embossed with the name of the state in which you obtained the license, rather than "the United States." If you have a divorce decree, it likewise bears the name of the state court in which you obtained the judgment.

By constitutional text, established interpretation and everyday practice, immigration is a federal matter and marriage is a state concern. When it comes to applying a neutral principle such as the 10th Amendment — powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the states or people — the very impartiality of the principle may yield inconsistent outcomes.

Robson makes important connections between and among immigration, marriage, states' rights and federalism that otherwise have been too absent from debate on these issues.

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Feminism and Families, Immigration, LGBT Rights | Leave a comment

Where are the Women? GW Edition July 2010

Posted on August 3, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

The July 2010 issue of the George Washington Law Review is here. It contains eight pieces (including the Foreward); zero are written by women.

H/T Ruthann Robson

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Law Schools, The Underrepresentation of Women | Leave a comment

Sexual Assault and the Law: Scholarship From Canada

Posted on July 30, 2010 by Christine Corcos

Two Canadian professors have contributed some provocative scholarship on sexual assault law recently.

Janine Benedet, University of British Columbia Faculty of Law, has published The Sexual Assault of Intoxicated Women , forthcoming in the Canadian Journal of Women and the Law. Here is the abstract.

This article considers how the criminal law of sexual assault in Canada deals with cases of women who have been consuming intoxicants (e.g. alcohol and or drugs). In particular, it considers under what circumstances the doctrines of incapacity to consent and involuntariness have been applied to cases in which the complainant was impaired by alcohol or drugs. It also reflects on problems of proof in such cases. Finally, it examines whether the treatment of this class of complaints tells us anything about the law’s understanding of consent, and capacity to consent, more generally, in the context of competing social understandings of women’s use of alcohol and other drugs.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Natasha Bakht, University of Ottawa Faculty of Law, has published What’s in a Face? Demeanour Evidence in the Sexual Assault Context in Sexual Assault Law, Practice and Activish in a Post-Jane Doe Era (Elizabeth Sheehy ed.; University of Ottawa Press, 2010). Here is the abstract.

Sexual assault is an area of law that has been fraught with misogyny and racism. This paper attempts to contribute to the literature on gender-justice in the sexual assault context by relying on an intersectional analysis that examines religion and culture. In doing so, I discuss the needs of a small minority of women. Though their numbers may be few in Canada, adequately responding to the plight of niqab-wearing women in this context is both just and will serve to ameliorate the workings of the judicial system for all women. In Toronto, Ontario, a Muslim woman complainant recently made a request to wear her niqab while giving testimony in a preliminary inquiry in which she alleged that two accuseds sexually assaulted her over a period of several years. The accuseds’ lawyers objected to the complainant wearing her niqab arguing that it prevented them from effectively cross-examining her. This paper will argue that the prosecution and adjudication of the offence of sexual assault must be more inclusive of the needs of Muslim women who cover their faces. My interest with this work is in ensuring that women’s equality is furthered, that women from minority groups in particular are not in the unhelpful position of having to choose between their cultural or religious beliefs and other fundamental rights that they are entitled to.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

Posted in Academia | Leave a comment

On Racism and Sexism in the Case of Shirley Sherrod

Posted on July 29, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

Janell Hobson writes here at the Ms. Magazine blog about the attacks on and defenses of Shirley Sherrod. Hobson writes that the "conversations unfolded the way they did because a black woman was at the center." Hobson aptly critiques both the right and the left:

We black women become easy targets of attack for two reasons:

1) Those who initiate the attacks–the Andrew Breitbarts of this world–feel they have social and cultural “permission” to do so.

2) Those who respond to these attacks by adding their own voices of condemnation–the initial responses of the NAACP and the USDA–which reacted to doctored video footage of Sherrod’s speech–feel that black women, as a group, can be sacrificed for political expediency.

However, in the defense of Sherrod we see a different but also problematic response to the black female body: the guilt of witnessing what liberal pundits like to term the “assassination,” the “lynching,” or the “bus-throwing” of the strong black woman. She is framed as the noble victim who stands firm against the winds of injustice because this world done her wrong. Her slow, defiant walk to the stake for her witch-burning (or lynching, as the case may be) inspires a different kind of racial guilt.

Read the full post here.

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Feminism and Politics, Race and Racism, Sexism in the Media | Leave a comment

Shirley Lung on (All) Women’s Work

Posted on July 29, 2010 by rrobson

Work has long been an issue for feminist legal scholars, but in a new article just posted on ssrn here, Professor Shirley Lung argues that we need to refocus.

Lung is addressing the new "family/work" policies often adopted by employers as a reaction to the economic recession and the proverbial wisdom that such policies are feminist and family-friendly. She writes:

which workers are the most likely beneficiaries of reduced or compressed work weeks? Which workers are the least likely beneficiaries? A growing feminist legal scholarship critiques the mainstream work/family discourse for focusing on the work/family conflicts of professional women to the exclusion of poor and low-income women. The policy reforms spawned by the work/family discourse-reduced hours, increased part-time jobs, compressed work weeks-reflect the interests of professional women who are in a position to trade income for time, and thus, to spend less time at paid work. The time crunch faced by poor and working class women necessitates a far broader discussion. The work/family conflicts of poor and low-income women are framed by social welfare policies, a low-wage labor market, and immigration policies that deny low-income women the right to make meaningful choices about paid work, unpaid work, and caregiving. These issues have not figured into work/family discussions.

While those policies might look feminist and family-friendly, it depends on one's perspective. Indeed, she argues that the "potential for work/family policies to reinforce intra-class self-interest and inter-class conflict, as well as hierarchies along race and citizenship, are almost limitless."

Lung examines three specific cases, grounding her theorizing about improving our notions of work justice. But ultimately, her article reminds us that the rallying cry of struggle for workers' rights over their (OUR?) own time decades ago - - - “eight hours labor, eight hours rest, and eight hours for what we will” - - - remains inherently radical and provocative. Especially when it is applied across class, race, citizenship, and yes, gender categories.

~ Ruthann Robson

Posted in Academia | Leave a comment

Checked Baggage with a Murderous Message?

Posted on July 29, 2010 by cyrachoudhury

Most of us have had the experience of wondering which one of the ubiquitous and indistinguishable black suitcase is ours at the baggage claim. However, this takes the need to make those bags easily identifiable to a new low.

Novelty suitcase stickers go viral

The abducted flight attendant is one of four designs a pair of Vancouver entrepreneurs have developed to make luggage stand out on airport carousels.

A pair of Vancouver entrepreneurs have taken the notion of making a suitcase stand out on the luggage rack to a whole new level.

The abducted flight attendant is one of four designs a pair of Vancouver entrepreneurs have developed to make luggage stand out on airport carousels.The abducted flight attendant is one of four designs a pair of Vancouver entrepreneurs have developed to make luggage stand out on airport carousels. (thecheeky.com)Colin Hart and Ryan McCormick have created large stickers that can be placed on luggage to give it the appearance that something strange or nefarious is going on.

The stickers make it appear that the suitcases have been ripped open to expose either stacks of money, cocaine, an abducted flight attendant or a case full of sex toys.

The pair operate a website that sells novelty items called thecheeky.com.

Hart said he got the idea while observing people watching nearly identical bags circling the carousel at Vancouver International Airport.

"You know they're just standing there like zombies just looking at these things," he told CBC News.

“Vote For Me Because of My Gender”

Posted on July 25, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

Here's the Washington Post's take on it:

A new video shows Ken Buck, the leading Republican candidate in a Colorado Senate race, repeatedly using the word "bull----" and saying that voters should choose him over his female primary opponent "because I do not wear high heels."

Buck, the Weld County district attorney, made the remarks at a recent forum, in response to an audience question. Former lieutenant governor Jane Norton has been running a campaign ad decrying third-party spending on behalf of Buck's campaign and urging Buck to "be man enough" to run the ads himself.

"She has questioned my manhood; I think it's fair to respond," Buck continues in the video. "I have cowboy boots on. They have real bull--- on 'em. That's Weld County bull---, not Washington D.C. bull---."

Full WaPo story here. Sounds like both candidates have made gender an issue where it need not be.

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Feminism and Politics | Leave a comment

CFP: Aging as a Feminist Concern, Jan. 21-22, 2011 Emory University School of Law

Posted on July 22, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

From colleagues Naomi Cahn, Nina Kohn and Martha Fineman, this call for papers:

Call for Papers: Aging as a Feminist Concern

January 21-22, 2010, Emory University School of Law

Aging is a feminist issue. The elderly, especially the oldest of the old, are disproportionately female. Among the elderly, women are more likely than their male peers to face a number of challenges, including poverty, disability and isolation. Yet, the legal academy, including feminist legal theorists, is only just beginning to pay attention to old age and its implications. This workshop will advance this agenda by bringing together a diverse group of scholars to explore the relationship between feminist theory, law and policy, and the concerns of the aging. We will focus on understanding how the relationship between age and gender can be theorized, as well as exploring how feminist legal theory can inform policy and law in the U.S. and abroad.

Feminist legal theorists are in an excellent position to advance progressive and transformative theories about aging. The form and content of the negative stereotypes older adults are frequently subjected to parallel negative stereotypes about women. Like women, the elderly (both men and women) have traditionally been cast as mentally inadequate, frail, and in need of protection by outsiders. Both age and gender – and out-dated conceptions of each – have historically been cavalierly used as convenient proxies for other, more germane, characteristics. In addition, older women face many of the same gendered inequalities of younger women in contexts ranging from domestic violence to employment discrimination. Further, the growing population of older women raises distinct issues of caretaking whether the older woman is serving as caretaker or as the care recipient.

SUBMISSIONS PROCEDURE:

Please email a paper proposal of several paragraphs length by October 1, 2010 to: mfineman@law.emory.edu, ncahn@law.gwu.edu, nakohn@law.syr.edu, and cdomozi@emory.edu.

Decisions will be made by October 15, 2010.

PAPER TOPICS:

Potential contributors are encouraged to think creatively about the relationship between aging and gender, and how feminist legal theory can be brought to bear on understanding old-age policies. To this end, possible paper topics include:

What characterizes a feminist approach to aging and how does this differ from other approaches?
How do current discourses and practices of domestic violence, family law, employment/labor law, sexuality, masculinity, and political theory engage or fail to engage with the elder population?
How does the law reinforce or enhance the vulnerability and marginalization of the elderly?
What arguments can be made for and against the proposition that the government must support caretaking and caretakers of the elderly? How do these arguments differ from those made on behalf of the caretakers of children or the disabled?
How should government "protect" older adults, what are the implications of such protection, and how might feminist legal theory inform and guide our understanding of protective policies?
How should family responsibility be structured in old-age policy?
What are the implications of health care reform for older adults aging?

WORKSHOP DETAILS:

The Workshop begins Friday at 4PM in room 575 of Emory Law School, followed by dinner in the Hunter Atrium. The Law School is located at 1301 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA. Presentations and panels continue on Saturday from 10AM to approximately 5PM. Lunch will be provided.

Posted in Call for Papers or Participation | Leave a comment

At Your Local Tailor

Posted on July 21, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

This sign, from a shop on 29th Street between 2nd and 3rd avenues in Manhattan:

Via WNYC.org and Leonard Lopate's "Bad Sign Language" contest (here).

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Bloggenpheffer | Leave a comment

In the Library With the Man Your Grades Could Be

Posted on July 21, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

The video was produced by the library at Brigham Young University. Hilarious!

H/T Paul Caron (here).

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Academia, Feminism and Culture | 1 Comment

Upping the Odds: Bristol, Levi and the Hazards of Young Marriage

Posted on July 20, 2010 by June Carbone

The headlines are abuzz, “Bristol Palin and Levi Johnson engaged, again!” Most of us, of course, wish them well, and this time they might make it work. As Naomi Cahn and I explained, however, in Red Families v. Blue Families, we are skeptical that marriage by itself is the answer that magically makes things better. In the modern era, the question of whether they will marry may be less important than whether they will stay married – and what being married does for their preparation for adulthood. So what exactly are Bristol and Levi’s prospects and what can they – and other young couples with less prominent parents – do to make them better?

Let’s start with age. Marrying at 19 improves the odds over marrying at 17. It’s a good bet that Bristol and Levi are more mature – and more realistic about family life — than they were two years ago.

Would they be better off marrying even later? Statistics show that marriages at 21 are more stable than if they begin at 19 – and significantly better than at 17. Older studies indicated that waiting beyond 21 didn’t make much difference, but the most recent studies report a change. Today, those who marry in their late twenties or early thirties are less likely to divorce than those marrying at younger ages.

The important reasons are why. If Bristol believes that marrying Levi means that she can quit work to devote herself to her children, she is in for a big disappointment. Forty years ago, a young man without a college degree could expect to support a family; today, young couples need two incomes. Paul Amato finds that financial stress makes it much more likely that a couple will divorce today than a similar couple facing financial stress a generation ago – and almost all couples in their early twenties face financial hardship unless their parents bankroll the family.

The second issue is whether they share a realistic commitment to the same marital ideals. If Bristol and Levi plan for two careers, or if Levi’s income hits six figures and they agree she should devote herself to the children, they may do quite well. If, as more frequently occurs, marriage makes it more likely that Bristol has a second child shortly after the first and less likely that she finishes college, she may be worse off in the long run. Amato’s studies indicate that while two career couples enjoy high quality marriages, women who would prefer to be at home but find themselves stuck in unsatisfying jobs because of their husband’s lack of income or benefits are heading for divorce.

Finally, the real issue (as the blogs get right) is whether Bristol should be marrying Levi. Economist Stéphane Mechoulan finds that later age of marriage does predict family stability – in large part because the successful become more likely to find each other if they wait. Bristol has apparently told US Weekly that the couple will probably see a marriage counselor, emphasizing that she believes Levi has “a lot of work to do.”

Levi, watch out – and do what Bristol says. Long term studies on marital quality find that the wife’s behavior raises the risk of divorce only rarely and then in the most extreme cases. The much more significant predictor – how well the husband responds to the wife’s criticisms.

And whatever the impact on Bristol, their son Tripp is more likely to have a strong relationship with his father if the two stay together. Not only do married men spend more time and resources on their children, but father and son are more likely to form an emotional bond that may weather a later breakup if they live together as a family during Tripp’s childhood.

The best advice for Bristol and Levi is the same advice they should have followed before Bristol become pregnant – stay in school, prepare for your future, be respectful of each other, and don’t have a child within marriage or without until you are ready to accept the responsibility that goes with it. The timing of the second child may influence their collective futures more than the timing of the nuptials.

-June Carbone

(cross-post from FamilyScholars.org)

Posted in Feminism and Families | Leave a comment

When the Tax Man is a Transgender Woman

Posted on July 18, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

The New York Times home page features the video above (source here) about tax non-compliance in Pakistan. The "hook" of the story is the use of transgendered women to collect taxes in a particular area Pakistan. The use of these tax collectors is meant to "embarrass" tax scofflaws into paying their bills. It is an unusual strategy, that's for sure. Perhaps more interestingly, the short piece implies that tax non-compliance in Pakistan may be linked to the level of foreign aid the country receives. Pakistan receives significant direct support from the U.S. -- $1.5 billion dollars by one count.

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Sisters In Other Nations, Women and Economics | Leave a comment

Feminist Law Prof 1L Stories Revisited

Posted on July 18, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

The University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law Review has published another Law Stories issue, this one with the theme "One L Revisited" (including an introduction by author Scott Turow). In this Summer 2010 issue, several law professors and other law graduates recount exp eriences from their first years of law school. Among the contributors are members of Feminist Law Professors' own blogroll. Here are a few excerpts (citations omitted):

Pamela Bridgewater, The Infinite Alchemy: A First Year Journey in Three Acts Spanning Three Decades, 78 UMKC L. Rev. 1027 (2010)

What most people do not know is that these years as a law professor have provided insight on my own legal education. In fact, it has continued my legal education in such a way that I often feel like that frightened, slienced young woman facing that elderly man in the seersucker suit, or that fierce young woman facing down her professor with anger and facts, or that insightful, enriched, an d empowered young woman reading, relating to and relying on the written word, narrative and theory to shape my understanding.

Mark R. Poirier, One L in a Different Voice: Becoming a Gay Male Feminist at Harvard Law School, 78 UMKC L. Rev. 1063 (2010)

Actually, Harvard law was not prepared to deal with a fair number of the students in my incoming class in the fall of 1975. The Zeitgeist of the early 1970s led many top law schools to admit more students of color and women, along with some attempts at economic (class) diversity. I suspect the idea was that the racial turmoil of the late 1960s and the emerging claims for social justice articulated by various feminism would be resolved by training a more diverse class of students as lawyers mostly in the traditional mold. There were role models in the civil rights movement and in the emerging constitutional and statutory litigation around sex-gender. As to role models, however, Harvard Law itself had almost no faculty of color and almost no women faculty throughout my stay, let alone any openly gay professors.

Lisa R. Pruitt, How You Gonna 'Keep Her Down on the Farm, 78 UMKC L. Rev. 2085 (2010)

Shortly before I graduated, I had a conversation with one of the tenured women in which she asked me why I had not sought a mentor from among the women faculty. I recall telling her that I didn't know -- it just hadn't happened. Further, my path had naturally not crossed with any of theirs because I was not particularly interested in their fields of expertise. If pressed to speculate now, though, I would say I lacked female mentors because none of the women professors reached out to me, and I did not have the courage to reach out to them. I also did not perceive a need for their mentorship, in part because male professors had filled the gap by initiating mentoring relationships with me.

Adrien Katherine Wing, One L Redux, 78 UMKC L. Rev. 1119 (2010)

I told the [Stanford BLSA] students that I was doing this essay. I was delighted that I had time to reflect after thirty years, while I was at my alma mater. When they asked what I thought now about the 1L year, about law school in general, I said, "Despite the pain and agony, I would do it all again. I have learned that the law can have soul. The law can have heart. And I hope that in my teaching, I have shown generations of students that this must be so."

The entire issue is worth reading -- very enjoyable and thought-provoking.

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Law Schools, Law Teaching | 1 Comment

Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia and The Washington College of Law 2010 Student Legal Essay Writing Competition

Posted on July 15, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

This call for essays may be of interest to students of Feminist Law Profs and others:

The Modern American (TMA) announces the American University Washington College of Law (WCL) essay competition, open to all full-time and part-time law students enrolled in and attending an accredited law school in the United States.

The Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia (WBA) and WCL share an important history in advancing women in the law and women’s rights. TMA celebrates this history by creating a writing competition that highlights the status and future of women’s bodily freedom in American policy-making and jurisprudence.

Women’s bodily freedom is an issue that has hung in the balance for a number of years. Yet new, controversial laws that criminalize pregnant women’s behavior and girls’ refusal to receive arguably harmful immunizations have put women’s bodily freedom back into the forefront of the public’s attention. What is the status of women’s bodily freedom and what should women’s rights advocates anticipate looking forward?

The winner of the competition will not only receive $1,000, but will also have the opportunity to publish his/her/zer essay in TMA.

PRIZES INCLUDE: $1000 and potential publication in TMA

TOPIC: The status and future of women’s bodily freedom in American policy-making and jurisprudence

DEADLINE: October 1st, 2010, at noon (Eastern Standard Time)

Rules and Regulations below.

1. Any student regularly enrolled in and attending classes full-time or part-time at an accredited law school in the United States is eligible to enter. Submissions must be through email to tma@wcl.american.edu, with one cover page that includes all personal information (name, address, phone number, email, law school, and essay title). Please indicate in the subject of your e-mail that you are submitting a paper for the WBA/WCL Writing Competition.

2. Papers must be the original, unpublished work of an individual student but may have been prepared as a course assignment. Some law school faculty guidance is permitted, but guidance by the competition judges is not permitted.

3. Papers must be typed, 20-30 pages in length, single-spaced, unjustified, Garamond font typeface with one-inch margins. Submissions should contain endnote citations, included in the paper’s length. Endnotes should conform to the 18th edition of A Uniform System of Citation (The Bluebook). Most important, submissions MUST be within the subject matter described in the introduction above.

4. Papers will be evaluated by the following criteria: writing quality and clarity; the level of interest that a broad segment of the legal profession would have for the topic and content; analysis and reasoning; timeliness, originality and creativity; quality and use of research; and compliance with these rules.

5. Papers will be evaluated, and the prize will be awarded, at the discretion of a panel of scholars and attorneys who will have no knowledge of the author’s name or law school.

6. The winner as well as all participants will be notified regarding the competition results by mail on October 21st, 2010.

7. Entries must be received no later than October 1st, 2010 at noon (Eastern Standard Time), at tma@wcl.american.edu.

8. Entry grants TMA the right of first publication of the paper and the copyright if published, constitutes certification of the paper as an original unpublished and unplagiarized work, and is the author’s agreement to hold TMA and its members harmless from, and to indemnify them for, any and all damages and costs relating to copyright infringement or plagiarism.

9. Please notify competition organizers at tma@wcl.american.edu if any of your contact information changes.

Posted in Law Teaching | Leave a comment

The Price of Donation

Posted on July 14, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

Earlier this week the Chronicle of Higher Education ran an article called "The Wrong Type of Solicitation" about the sexual harrassment of higher education planned-giving personnel.

Sexual harassment can occur in any job, but certain aspects of fund raising make it more likely. For one thing, women now dominate the profession. Three-fourths of the 30,000 members of the Association of Fundraising Professionals are female.

In many cases, those women are appealing to older, powerful men for large donations. To succeed, fund raisers must build long-term relationships with donors. And they often visit donors in their homes or meet them in social settings where alcohol and personal information are plentiful.

Apparently, the Chronicle reporter spoke to over 20 planned-giving professionals and most were reluctant to use their names. Why?

"It is a disempowering experience," says one woman. "I do not want to publicly acknowledge weird experiences in my career. It puts an X on your head. And I do not want people to think I brought it on myself."

The full article is available here (pay site - sorry; day passes available).

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Sexual Harassment | Leave a comment

Duncan on Sexting

Posted on July 14, 2010 by Bridget Crawford

Susan Duncan (Louisville) has posted to SSRN her working paper, "A Legal Response is Necessary for Self Produced Child Pornography: A Legislator’s Checklist for Drafting the Bill." Here is the abstract:

This Article explores self produced child pornography, known in the media as “sexting,” and offers a balanced, multi-faceted approach including both a legal response and education. Currently, states are modifying their laws because applying existing child pornography statutes to self produced child pornography results in a punishment which does not fit the crime. The author analyzes and critiques these proposed statutes finding none adequately address the multiple facets of the self produced child pornography problem. The Article concludes by offering a checklist of important provisions legislators should consider and proposed language legislators can incorporate into their bills. Policymakers and scholars will gain an excellent summary of both the problem and the arguments advanced by scholars studying the issue, as well as a template for solving the problem after reading this Article.

The full working paper is available here.

-Bridget Crawford

Posted in Feminism and Technology, Feminist Legal Scholarship | Leave a comment

Northern District of California Permits Defendants to Interrogate Title IX Plaintiff About Whether She Consented to Teacher’s Sexual Behavior When She Was 15

Posted on July 14, 2010 by Colin Miller

A plaintiff claims that she was 15 years-old when she was subjected to sexual molestation by her then 38 year-old teacher at a charter school. Accordingly, she brings a Section 1983 action (1) against the school and its director/principal for failure to train and supervise, and (2) against the teacher for denial of equal protection. She also files a Title IX sex discrimination claim against all three defendants, a state law claim for negligent hiring and supervision against the school, and a state law invasion of privacy claim against the director/principal, who allegedly made a public announcement to the student body, disclosing details of the sexual conduct between the teacher and the plaintiff. During a deposition of the plaintiff, the parties disagree about the proper scope of questioning. Among other things, defense counsel wants to interrogate the plaintiff about whether she "consented" to the sexual encounters with her teacher and whether the teacher's sexual behavior was "unwelcome" by her. The parties thereafter make their arguments to the court on the issue. How should the court rule? In its recent opinion in Doe v. Willits Unified School Dist., 2010 WL 2524587 (N.D. Cal. 2010), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California permitted such questioning. I strongly disagree.

Initially, the court noted that the Advisory Committee's Note to the federal rape shield rule, Federal Rule of Evidence 412, indicates that

Courts should presumptively issue protective orders barring discovery unless the party seeking discovery makes a showing that the evidence sought to be discovered would be relevant under the facts and theories of the particular case, and cannot be obtained except through discovery.

The court thus had to decide whether the plaintiff's "consent" to the teacher's sexual behavior was part of an element or defense in the case, and ostensibly found that it could only be an element in connection with the plaintiff's Title IX claim. The court then noted on the one hand "that the question has not yet been addressed in th[e Ninth C]ircuit." On the other hand, it found that each of the cases outside of the Ninth Circuit which had specifically considered whether consent is an element of a Title IX case had "held that consent is not part of the cause of action." Particularly persuasive for me was the opinion in Mary M. v. North Lawrence Community Sch. Corp., 131 F.3d 1220 (7th Cir. 1997), in which the Seventh Circuit held that if "children cannot be said to consent to sex in a criminal context, they similarly cannot be said to welcome it in a civil context. To find otherwise would be incongruous."

But rather than join all other courts and preclude the subject interrogation, the Northern District of California found that

because the law in this circuit is unsettled, and because this Court does not wish to prematurely define the elements of the causes of action in this case (a question more properly addressed by the trial judge), this Court will allow limited questions on the issue of whether plaintiff welcomed or consented to her sexual encounters with [the teacher]. Defendants therefore generally may ask plaintiff whether she wanted to engage in sexual conduct with [the teacher], and/or whether she initiated the sexual relationship.

Really? Rather than step on the toes of the trial judge or the Ninth Circuit, the court decided to allow interrogation of a child as to whether she "consented" to sexual relations with her 38 year-old teacher when she was 15? How exactly does such a conclusion cohere with the Advisory Committee's declaration that courts should presumptively issue protective orders and the categorical chorus of precedent precluding such interrogation? In seemingly trying to protect its opinion from appellate review, the court removed protection from the plaintiff.

-Colin Miller

Posted in Acts of Violence, Coerced Sex, Courts and the Judiciary | Leave a comment

Answers Found in the 10th Amendment

Receive Email Notice of New Posts

Albany Law School

American University Washington College of Law

Arizona State University College of Law

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

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

Chapman University School of Law

City University of New York

Cleveland State University College of Law

Columbia Law School

Cornell University Law School

Dalhousie University

DePaul University College of Law

Drexel University College of Law

Duke University School of Law

Elon University School of Law

Emory University School of Law

Florida Coastal School of Law

Florida International University College of Law

Florida State University College of Law

Fordham Law School

George Washington University Law School

Georgetown University Law Center

Golden Gate University School of Law

Gonzaga University School of Law

Hamline University School of Law

Harvard Law School

Hofstra University School of Law

Humbolt University Berlin Law Faculty

Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago-Kent College of Law

Indiana University Maurer School of Law

Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis

John Marshall Law School

Keele University School and Department of Law

Lewis & Clark Law School

Louisiana State University Law Center

Loyola University New Orleans College of Law

Marquette University Law School

Michigan State University College of Law

New York Law School

New York University School of Law

Northeastern University School of Law

Northwestern University School of Law

Ohio State University College of Law

Oklahoma City University School of Law

Osgoode Hall Law School York University

Pace Law School

Pennsylvania State University

Princeton University

Queen's University Kingston

Rutgers University School of Law - Camden

Rutgers University School of Law - Newark

Santa Clara University School of Law

Seattle University School of Law

Seton Hall University School of Law

South Texas College of Law

Southern Methodist University School of Law

Southwestern Law School

St. Louis University School of Law

St. Thomas University School of Law

Stanford Law School

State University of New York at Buffalo

Stetson University College of Law

Suffolk University Law School

Syracuse University College of Law

Technorati

Tel Aviv University Buchmann Faculty of Law

Temple University School of Law

Texas Southern University School of Law

Texas Tech University School of Law

The University of Chicago

Thomas Cooley Law School

Thomas Jefferson School of Law

Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center