Who is talking and writing about the Restatement (Third) of Torts in the “Liability for Physical and Emotional Harms” symposium edition of the William Mitchell Law Review? One — yes, just one — contributor out of 14 is female. Here’s the edition’s table of contents, courtesy of SCLIP:
Green, Michael D. Introduction: The Third Restatement of Torts in a crystal ball. 37 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 993-1010 (2011). [H][L][W]
Symposium, Flying Trampolines and Falling Bookcases: Understanding the Third Restatement of Torts (Spring 2010). Speeches by Michael D. Green, Justice Daryl Hecht, Hildy Bowbeer and Justice Paul H. Anderson. 37 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1011-1052 (2011). [H][L][W]
Steenson, Mike. Minnesota negligence law and the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harms. 37 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1055-1401 (2011). [H][L][W]
Ehrich, Jeffrey A. Negligent infliction of emotional distress: a case for an independent duty rule in Minnesota. 37 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1402-1447 (2011). [H][L][W]
Logan, David A. When the Restatement is not a restatement: the curious case of the “flagrant trespasser.” 37 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1448-1484 (2011). [H][L][W]
Christie, George C. A comment on Restatement Third of Torts’ proposed treatment of the liability of possessors of land. 37 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1485-1491 (2011). [H][L][W]
Stewart, Larry S. Clarifications on the duty to exercise care. 37 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1492-1506 (2011). [H][L][W]
Gold, Steve C. The “reshapement” of the false negative asymmetry in toxic tort causation. 37 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1507-1581 (2011). [H][L][W]
Rapp, Geoffrey Christopher. Torts 2.0: the Restatement 3rd and the architecture of participation in American tort law. 37 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1582-1598 (2011). [H][L][W]
Oliphant, Ken. Uncertain factual causation in the Third Restatement: some comparative notes. 37 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1599-1632 (2011). [H][L][W]
Tinkham, Thomas. Applying a rational approach to judicial independence and accountability on contemporary issues. 37 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1633-1665 (2011). [H][L][W]
The student editors of a symposium edition may or may not be responsible for selection of speakers. Depending on the school and the symposium, students may work with a faculty member to identify potential contributors, or a faculty member may choose the contributors. In either case, if the faculty member values gender and racial diversity, one would hope that he or she would recommend a broad range of participants. If the symposium is about a Restatement, presumably the students or faculty organizer would consult the ALI Reporters, and if the Reporters value gender and racial diversity, they would make efforts to have a gender and racial balance among symposium participants.
So what happened at the William Mitchell symposium on the Restatement (Third) of Torts? It can’t be that there aren’t any women writing or thinking about Torts. There are substantially more than 25 women who are part of the Members Consultative Group for this project (see here). Just sayin.’
Update: This isn’t the first time that there’s been a Torts symposium without many (um, or any) female contributors. Ann previously blogged about the female-free symposium at Wake Forest Law Review in 2009. See here.
-Bridget Crawford
