Where are the Women? SUPREME COURT ECONOMIC REVIEW ADDITION (NB: that is a pun on “edition” for the humor impaired, given the focus on sum numbers.) (Yes, “sum” is another bad pun! Try to keep up!)

Posted on March 15, 2010 by Ann Bartow

17 SUPREME COURT ECONOMIC REVIEW, PP. 1-337, 2009.

Symposium on Post-Kelo Reform. 17 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 1-278 (2009).

Somin, Ilya. Introduction to the symposium. 17 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 1-5 (2009).

Dana, David A. Exclusionary eminent domain. 17 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 7-62 (2009).

Eagle, Steven J. Kelo, directed growth, and municipal industrial policy. 17 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 63-126 (2009).

Ely, James W., Jr. Post-Kelo reform: is the glass half full or half empty? 17 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 127-150 (2009).

Epstein, Richard A. Public use in a post-Kelo world. 17 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 151-171 (2009).

Kelly, Daniel B. Pretextual takings: of private developers, local governments, and impermissible favoritism. 17 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 173-235 (2009).

Morriss, Andrew P. Symbol or substance? An empirical assessment of state responses to Kelo. 17 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 237-278 (2009).

Fon, Vincy and Francesco Parisi. Stability and change in international customary law. 17 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 279-309 (2009).

Wright, Joshua D. Antitrust analysis of category management: Conwood v. United States Tobacco Co. 17 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 311-337 (2009).

****
Only half an article by a woman in the entire volume, Vincy Fon, along with eight men. 309 pages of d00dliness. Fon & Parisi have a different topic and aren’t in the symposium on post-Kelo reform. Soooo, that’d be 278 pages of symposium d00dliness and zero women.

The symposium topic is “Post Kelo Reform.” I’m sure some women law profs are interested enough in the decision to write about it if asked. Hell, Kelo herself is a woman — and not a passive named plaintiff propped up by the Cato Institute either. The symposium folks could have asked to excerpt part of her book about the case if they had nothing else.

–Ann Bartow

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

2 Responses to Where are the Women? SUPREME COURT ECONOMIC REVIEW ADDITION (NB: that is a pun on “edition” for the humor impaired, given the focus on sum numbers.) (Yes, “sum” is another bad pun! Try to keep up!)

  1. junior scholar says:
    March 16, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    In all these where are the women postings, co-authored work by one man and one woman gets treated as “one half an article” by a woman. Such views discourage coauthoring. (It goes along with giving a co-authored piece half the credit as a sole authored piece in the tenure process, by some.) It seems that we want to encourage women (and men, but they already seem to do so in larger numbers, at least in the social sciences) to coauthor (with other women and with men). Co-authored work, at least in the social sciences, gets higher citations, etc.

  2. Bridget Crawford says:
    March 16, 2010 at 7:43 pm

    The absence of female authors, no matter how you count ’em, is depressing. That women might have a “better” chance of being published if they co-author with a man is depressing, too.

Comments are closed.