Law School Grade Reform – Not So Fast

Many of Columbia’s peer schools have recently undertaken reforms in their grading systems.   Harvard and Stanford have moved in the direction of Yale’s system – three passing grades (1: Honors/High Pass, 2: Pass and 3: Restricted Credit/Low Pass) and then 4: No Credit/Fail.   Since hardly anyone fails in our law schools, this means that these schools have adopted a policy of three grades, unmodified by pluses or minuses.   NYU, by contrast, adjusted its curve upward capping the number of A (A+, A, A-) grades in a class at 31% and targeting only 6% for B- and below.   This is a higher curve than ours at Columbia (our first year grading curve caps A range grades at 24% and targets 10% for B- and below).   I won’t rehearse here the justifications for these reforms.   You can read more about them here and here and here.   Wikipedia has an overview.

Despite our peer schools’ recent efforts at grading reform, we have resisted moving in a similar direction.   We haven’t reached a final faculty decision on the issue, but we’ve devoted considerable thought to it and are to a large measure disinclined to follow the trend.   Why?

Well, there are a number of reasons why these reforms might be both well- and ill-advised.   But my hesitation stems from a concern for our students of color and women students.   Even with our current grading system (four passing letter grades with pluses and minuses) prospective employers rely heavily upon the formal and informal recommendations of faculty – especially faculty they know personally.   Whether applying for clerkships or jobs in private or public interest, judges and employers use grades as the initial filter in sifting through stacks of resumes, but when deciding which of the best students to interview, they typically turn to the recommendations of faculty.   This informal, largely old-boy network continues to disproportionately favor students who are white and male.   I’m not prepared to accuse my colleagues of intentional discrimination, indeed, it is often the case based on my own experience that the white male students are most comfortable extending themselves both inside and outside the classroom in ways that make them stand out.   Class background is no small factor here as well.     I get to know them and their thinking better than other students who are more reticent to seek me out, toot their own horns, offer to do research for me, etc.   I regard it as part of my job as a professor to create opportunities for a larger range of students to shine, but also to teach them all that part of success in this business is feeling comfortable putting yourself out there.

Read entire post here

– Katherine Franke

Share
Posted in Academia, Feminists in Academia, Law Schools, Law Teaching, Race and Racism | 3 Comments

What Your Phone Can Do For You

I take back whatever I’ve said about the iPhone’s applications.  Who knew that the iPhone could be a, well, er . . . personal massager?  Betcha someone in Alabama came up with this app.

-Bridget Crawford

Share
Posted in Feminism and Technology | 1 Comment

Who is allowed to have children, anyway?

(Cross posted from Related Topics)

These thoughts are generated by a confluence of things I’ve been reading/writing about.     Put them all together and I’m troubled.

–If you look back. you’ll see a recent post here about the movement to prevent lesbians and gay men from becoming adoptive and/or foster parents.     The contention, of course, is that lesbians and gay men should not be allowed to be parents.     If you are interested in more extended discussion, you can find a fair amount of discussion on this topic elsewhere on this blog.   But in short I think the objection to lesbians and gay men as parents has to do with an abiding attachment to gendered parenting.

–Then there’s the notable case of the woman who just gave birth to octuplets.   I’ve commented on this a couple of times.   And there’s a rather interesting piece about the case from the Observer (UK) today.   (The view from a distance is often very enlightening.)     Increasingly the discussion in press is focusing on the whether she should have been allowed to have these children.   There are at least two reasons proffered for why the answer might have been “no”–because she already had six children (and enough is enough) or because she lacks (or will lack or might lack) the means to support the fourteen children she will now be raising.

–Finally, in today’s New York Times there’s an extensive article in the magazine section about single mothers by choice.     Continue reading

Share
Posted in Feminism and Families, LGBT Rights | Comments Off on Who is allowed to have children, anyway?

“Despite Odds, Women’s Movement Persists In Iran”

NPR story you can read and/or listen to here.

Share
Posted in Feminism and Politics, Feminism and Religion, Sisters In Other Nations | Comments Off on “Despite Odds, Women’s Movement Persists In Iran”

Escaping or Exposing the Scrutiny of Feminists?

I received this email from a former student and all-around great person, who wishes to remain anonymous.   I reprint it here with his permission:

I was flooded with e-mails and blog postings yesterday about “DABA” or “Dating a Banker Anonymous,” a “support group” of women who date Wall Street bankers.   These bankers, obviously, are not living the life they had a few years ago.   The New York Times covered this story here.   Apparently, DABA started out as a support group for the disenfranchised spouses and girlfriends of these bankers, and it has now spawned a blog, detailing (in what appears to be jest) the sad lives these women are now living (e.g. their boyfriends are no longer rich bankers; they can no longer dine at Manhattan’s finest restaurants, their Bergdorf Goodman allowances have been halved, etc.).   As a male, I initially found myself disgusted by this site and its writers and followers, who are seemingly compelled to an existence defined by materialism and a stable “lover” (who inevitably must have money).

I complained to my girlfriend about it, whose response actually enlightened me.   If men stereotypically look for good looking, physically attractive women, how is it any more offensive that women looking for rich, powerful, and successful men?   I must admit I cannot argue with the statement, since many blogs and websites aimed at men exist simply to ogle or comment on a certain female celebrity or swimsuit model’s body or looks.   Nonetheless, this DABA group’s blog headlines that it is “free from the scrutiny of feminists.”   I feel that misogynistic websites and blogs exist in over-abundance for men, but for women, especially what appear to be educated women such as these, websites like this make what could have started as a simple (and certainly legitimate) support group for spouses and girlfriends of self-absorbed bankers, into a stereotypical example of a group of Sex and the City / Lipstick Jungle / Cashmere Mafia-like gold diggers.   I think it’s simply a blow to any progress made by feminists, or for that matter women in general.   I’m not trying to defend the male version, but say what you will about modern feminism, and that women cannot be limited to certain gender stereotypes, but I personally feel that websites like this set the female gender back.

NPR reporter Linda Holmes asks ‘Dating a Banker Anonymous’: Did the NYT Get Punk’d? here.   She lays out a strong case for an affirmative answer.   Jeers to NYT reporter Ravi Somaiya for some sloppy reporting, but cheers — in a third-wave, post-modern, ironic way — to the women at DABA for starting off some interesting conversations.   If DABA is, indeed, a fiction, it is a rather clever one that exposes a deep cultural desire to believe that women are shallow and materialistic.   But therein lies one of the challenges to a third-wave feminist method: it relies on irony to do work that many people will not, cannot or choose not to see.

-Bridget Crawford

Share
Posted in Feminism and Culture, Guest Blogger | Comments Off on Escaping or Exposing the Scrutiny of Feminists?

GO STEELERS!

Share
Posted in Academia | 1 Comment

License to Discriminate

In a “narrow” ruling that is really quite expansive in scope, the California Court of Appeal for the 4th District ruled last week that a private religious high school was not covered by the state’s public accommodation law. As a result, the court effectively upheld the school’s decision to expel two female students for allegedly engaging in a homosexual relationship. In effect, this decision gives private religious schools carte blanche to discriminate against their lesbian and gay students.

California’s public accommodations law–the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51–prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in “all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” In reaching its decision that the school was not a “business establishment,” the court likened the school to a membership organization such as the Boy Scouts, which the California Supreme Court has held  not to be a business establishment for this purpose. The court stated that, “[j]ust like the Boy Scouts, the School ‘is an expressive  social organization whose primary function is the inculcation of values in its youth  members.'” What the court seemed to ignore in its analysis, however, is the fact that the school admitted not only the children of members of the church, but also children of nonmembers. Indeed, in its statement of fact, the court specifically mentioned that the school charged one rate of tuition for church members and a higher rate of tuition for nonmembers. If you ask me, a religious school that is open to the public–and not just to members of the church that operates the school–and that charges its students for access to its educational services is quite clearly a “business establishment” that should be prohibited from discriminating in violation of the public accommodations law.  

It is worth noting that it was the school’s  all-male board of directors that ultimately decided on these students’ expulsion. The board of directors is comprised solely of men because, in addition to believing that homosexuality is a sin, this denomination–to quote the court of appeal–believes that “women should not be placed in a position of authority over men.” Given these beliefs, it should probably come as no surprise, then, that the  creepiest and most disturbing portion of the court’s opinion–and the portion that demonstrates precisely why this school should be prohibited from discriminating against its students on the basis of sexual orientation and gender–concerned the male principal’s questioning of the two students concerning their sexual orientation. As the Los Angeles Times  reported:

“In addition to their discrimination claim, the girls complained that the school invaded their privacy and detained them unlawfully. The girls complained the principal sat ‘very close’ to them and asked them if they were bisexual, if they had kissed each other, and whether they had done anything ‘inappropriate,’ the court said.  

“Mary Roe said, ‘He got very close to me and he said, “Have you ever touched [Jane Doe] in . . . any inappropriate ways? And he looked me up and down when he asked that.”  

“But the court said there was no evidence that the principal had a prurient interest in the girls.”

The attorney for the expelled students (who are now in college) has indicated that they will appeal this decision.

-Tony Infanti

Share
Posted in LGBT Rights | Comments Off on License to Discriminate

Gay Rights Setback in Utah

In an earlier post  following the November election, I noted how a Utah LGBT rights organization saw the potential for a silver lining in the LDS church’s support for Prop. 8. The organization, Equality Utah, planned a multipronged legislative agenda to expand LGBT rights in Utah based on the church’s statements that it is not antigay and that it had no problem with many LGBT rights protections under California law. That legislative agenda has, however, quickly suffered a setback in the Utah legislature. On only the second day of the current legislative session, a proposal to allow not only spouses, parents, and children but also other financial dependents to bring wrongful death actions–a proposal that has been  described as the “least controversial piece” of this multipronged legislative agenda–died in committee.

And why did this noncontroversial bill die, you might ask? According to the Salt Lake Tribune story, opponents feared that allowing financial dependents (which would include, but not be confined to, same-sex partners) to sue for wrongful death would create a slippery slope toward same-sex marriage in Utah:  “Opponents likened the bill to a ‘slippery slope’ and a ‘dirty shirt’ in a laundry basket of marital rights that could lead courts to justify legalizing same-sex marriage, similar to rulings in Massachusetts, California and Connecticut.” As an openly gay Utah legislator correctly pointed out, this argument holds absolutely no water in Utah, where the state constitution already confines marriage to a union of  a man and a woman and prohibits any “other domestic union, however denominated,[from being] recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.” Utah Const. art. I, § 29(2). Thus, the Utah courts would be hard pressed to use this, or any other, legislation granting piecemeal rights LGBT persons to justify extending the right to marry to same-sex couples.

Well, so much for silver linings when some legislators are willing to so blatantly mischaracterize the legal effect of a bill meant to help a wide swath of nontraditional families around the state.

-Tony Infanti

Share
Posted in LGBT Rights | 1 Comment

Plush Uterus safety recall!

null

NOTICE

In an effort to ensure our plush products exceed federal and international safety standards, we learned the 2008 Plush Uterus has failed a pull test. The ovaries may detach when pulled, becoming a potential small part choking hazard for young children. No one has been harmed.

Consumers may either return for refund/exchange, or opt-out via email if the uterus is not accessible to children. More info here.

null

Share
Posted in Bloggenpheffer | Comments Off on Plush Uterus safety recall!

Prop. 8 Donors Cannot Hide

In a blow to hypocrisy, a federal judge has rejected the attempt by Prop. 8 supporters to shield the names of those who donated in support of the measure from release to the public. I refer to this as a hypocritical position on the part of the Prop. 8 supporters because the law that makes the identities of those who contribute $100 or more to initiative campaigns a matter of public record was itself enacted through the initiative process by California voters in 1974. In defending Prop. 8 after its passage, supporters of the measure have argued that the courts should defer to the will of the people; however, it seems that the will of the people means little to them–and, in their view, should mean little to the courts–when the will of the people affects Prop. 8 supporters (rather than the LGBT community) adversely.

 In court, the Prop. 8 supporters had argued for an exemption from the law on the ground that they had been the subject of reprisals. Though the alleged vandalism and death threats cannot be defended as an appropriate response to someone’s political speech, the Prop. 8 backers were also complaining because they had been the subject of entirely legal forms of”reprisal”such as boycotts and picketing. In any event, the answer to this problem is, as the judge in the case so cogently noted, not shielding the identity of Prop. 8 supporters from the public, but having the targeted Prop. 8 supporters report any illegal activities to the police.

 Naturally, the Prop. 8 supporters have already indicated their intention to appeal this ruling. Stay tuned!

 -Tony Infanti

Share
Posted in LGBT Rights | Comments Off on Prop. 8 Donors Cannot Hide

We’re Back

This new Feminist Law Professors website is now up and running.  The old site will not be updated.

We did lose some posts and comments from the last two days (sorry!), along with our Technorati stats.  The rest of the content appears to have migrated safely.  

We know we need to fix the link categories in the blogroll.  Otherwise, it looks like we’re back to our old (and yet improved, technologically speaking) selves.  

Any problems with the site?  Feel free to email Ann Bartow (abartow@feministlawprofessors.com) or me (bcrawford@feministlawprofessors.com).

-Bridget Crawford

Share
Posted in Blog Administration | 4 Comments

We Can’t Blog Effectively Without Cuss Words, So We’ve Migrated The Blog Outside South Carolina

Ah, the heady allure of free speech and academic freedom!

Visit us at our new location:
https://www.feministlawprofessors.com

There may be a few bugs as we sort this all out, apologies in advance for this.

–Ann Bartow

Share
Posted in Academia, Blog Administration | Comments Off on We Can’t Blog Effectively Without Cuss Words, So We’ve Migrated The Blog Outside South Carolina

Democratic Congress, Democratic President, so what’s the deal…

With this? Historiann asks: Are women citizens of this republic?

ETA: See also.

Share
Posted in Feminism and Politics, Reproductive Rights | 1 Comment

South Carolina State Senator Robert Ford is trying to outlaw lewd language and profanity.

Story here. It notes:

We spoke to Debra Gammons with the Charleston School of Law about freedom of speech.

She reminds that the First Amendment is not absolute. You cannot say whatever you want whenever you want to.

Courts will usually look at where the words were said and who heard them. Children are usually protected.

Not an entirely accurate overview of contemporary First Amendment jurisprudence, to put it mildly. I’m tempted to make some snarky remark about the quality of the law faculty at our in-state competitor, but I’ve been misquoted so many times, I will assume that is what happened here.

The text of the bill Ford introduced is accessible here. It says in part:

“Section 16-15-370.     (A)     It is unlawful for a person in a public forum or place of public accommodation wilfully and knowingly to publish orally or in writing, exhibit, or otherwise make available material containing words, language, or actions of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature.

(B)     A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

Maybe I have a Con Law treatise lying around someplace that I can send to Senator Ford. And I’ll try hard not to use the eff word in the gift card I enclose.

–Ann Bartow

ETA: Eugene Volokh has a pretty good take on this bill, I have to admit.

Share
Posted in Feminism and Law, Sociolinguistics, South Carolina | 5 Comments

Iceland to Name First Lesbian Prime Minister

From Yahoo News:

Iceland’s next leader will be an openly gay former flight attendant who parlayed her experience as a union organizer into a decades-long political career. Both parties forming Iceland’s new coalition government support the appointment of Johanna Sigurdardottir, the island nation’s 66-year-old social affairs minister, as Iceland’s interim prime minister.

Photo from here.

Share
Posted in Feminism and Politics, Firsts, LGBT Rights, Sisters In Other Nations | 2 Comments

Site Maintenance

Beginning today, the site may be running slowly and contributors will not be able to post for approximately 24 hours.  We are addressing/fixing/upgrading technical aspects of the blog.  Apologies for any inconveniences.

-Bridget Crawford

Share
Posted in Blog Administration | Comments Off on Site Maintenance

Great Takedown of Yet Another Stupid, Sexist PETA Ad

Here, at Jezebel. Props to post author “Intern Katy.” Via Jen.

Share
Posted in Feminism and Culture, Sexism in the Media | 2 Comments

43 Alaskan Native Americans File Suit Against Jesuits for Rape, Sexual Assault

Heart has the story here.

Share
Posted in Acts of Violence, Coerced Sex, Feminism and Law, Feminism and Religion, Race and Racism | 1 Comment

“Gender, history and biography”

Cool post from an even cooler blogger: Historiann!

Oh and while you are over there, also check out A Tale of Two Senators.

Share
Posted in Academia, Feminist Legal History | Comments Off on “Gender, history and biography”

Concerns about the draft American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

Irasema Garza, President of Legal Momentum, writes:

Today the House Democrats unveiled the near-final version of the economic stimulus package known as the  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, with a vote expected as early as tomorrow. While it contains some powerful measures that will support women and families in these trying economic times, it came up short on two fronts.

First, the bill fails to ensure that women will benefit from the investment in infrastructure and the green economy, in that it avoids setting any types of targets for women’s participation in these heavily male-dominated fields.

Second,  the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was stripped this afternoon of provisions that would make contraceptives more affordable to working women and families. The move was a concession to House Republicans who had been complaining about the small $200 million subsidy, and it means that many low-income women and couples will struggle to afford the means to act responsibly with regard to their families and health. Playing politics with contraception only serves to hurt those  who can least afford it.

Please contact your United States Representative and Senators today and:

  • Ask that the stimulus package include a concrete goal of 25 percent  participation by women in infrastructure, green economy, and other non-traditional jobs
  • Demand that the stimulus package recognize that access to affordable contraception is key to women’s health and economic security, and ask them to reinstate funding for family planning for poor women.

Please call the U.S.Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Ask the operator to connect you to your Senators and Representative.

Share
Posted in Feminism and Politics, Women and Economics | Comments Off on Concerns about the draft American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

Inauguration Memories

I am back from DC (yes, there is still snow in Chicago) and I have to tell you the inauguration was indescribable. Yes, I made it inside. Security was tight and the zoo at security in the colored zones (blue, silver, purple) was apparently beyond inept. Friends who scored tickets with the blue zone (VIPs who got to sit down) never made it inside. There is something to be said for joining the huddled masses on the mall. We were huddled and definitely masses, but I wouldn’t have traded a seat in the VIP section (well maybe where there was a chair) for the incredible experience of being with the masses on the mall. I am still celebrating (and still trying to warm up from the 6 hours plus standing on the mall for the ceremonies). Despite the frigid temperatures and the long wait for the inaugural address, it was a six hour party out there. My sister and I got to the mall by 6:30 am. Yes, if you do the math, I actually got up at 4:20 and was in the kiss and park to catch the metro downtown by 4:40 am. (Who knew an alarm clock actually worked at that crazy hour?) That shows you how much I wanted to be there; how crazy the crowds were and how slooooow Metro was (Over an hour 20 from West Falls Church metro on the orange line, for those of you that know the system). When people said they were afraid the DC subway system couldn’t survive the crunch on inauguration day, they weren’t kidding. I thought I was the early bird, but by 6:30am, when we made it past the phalanx of military and police, the first public area on the mall was already filled.

I’m sure you all saw me on the screen when they flashed the mall. That was me, in the green hooded jacket, standing in the second full section on the left hand side, cheering like crazy. Security was tighter than I have ever seen it. There were snipers on the roof tops, military helicopters both buzzing the area and hovering near the stand, soldiers and police lining the perimeters. Access to the mall was limited to the 14th street when I arrived, and it was a relatively narrow funnel. Can you identify all the forms of security uniform? I can’t, but on our way in we got a great review, local police, park police, we marched passed different types of police, military (they were the guys in camouflage outfits with guns) and some guys in dark outfits whose affiliation I don’t even want to begin to guess at.

People were celebrating from the minute we got there. Shivering, stamping our feet, trying to score some hot chocolate, we were freezing our [insert part of anatomy here] off. But that didn’t make the celebration any less heartfelt. People weren’t complaining about the cold, because the warmth of the moment itself was enough to keep you going. I saw plenty of inaugurals in my days in Washington, but I never saw so many people on the mall. By the end we were so jammed in, we were elbow to elbow. The Post had suggested the night before that you would have 2 meters of space. I think they were being optimistic. Is it two meters when you are standing shoulder to shoulder and nose to back? And photos on TV don’t do the crowd justice because the JumboTron scans showed us jam packed all the way back PAST the Washington Monument. People were watching the ceremonies from along the Lincoln Memorial. It was incredible. Got to be over 2 million easy.

Despite the narrow spaces, we were rocking to the Lincoln Memorial concert that was being broadcast before the inaugural events started. We were singing and dancing (frankly, you had to do something to keep the blood flowing), sharing hopes, and just plain old partying down. The warmth of the crowd kept you going. The talk back during the speech, the spontaneous applause, by different parts of the crowd at different times, showed that it was an historic moment, shared by an incredibly diverse crowd. Young, old, African American, white, latino, Asian, everybody was there, from all walks of life. Even one group of Canadians to the right of us, waiving a Canadian flag. It is a memory I will keep with me forever.

People were snapping pictures like crazy during the swearing in ceremony. But around me, once the inaugural address started, people took one photo and then put their cameras down to listen. 2 million people falling silent to listen and react to a speech is an amazing experience to be a part of. Of course, thanks to my sister, who was there with me, the drama continued after the inauguration. Just as President Obama (let me type that again, President Obama) finished his inaugural address, she collapsed from the cold, and I got a close up look at the first aid abilities of the military, the Park Rangers, and the Public Health Service officers that helped her. To my unending disappointment, I missed a perfect photo opportunity as four soldiers (three newly back from Iraq), put her on a stretcher and carried her down the length of the mall to the First Aid tent. She’s fine (thank, God) but the tents were full as a lot of people succumbed to the cold. From asthma attacks, to frostbitten limbs, to one poor women who was hooked up to an IV for dehydration plus frost bite, lots of people succumbed to the cold.

The party didn’t stop or the feeling that security is designed to make each person’s life as difficult as possible after the playing of Hail to Chief. Seeking warm shelter in the few open museums, along with millions of others of exhausted people, before making the long trek back to Virginia, we kept running into the inaugural parade because you couldn’t even cross Constitution Avenue. That left those of us (2 million people?) who were trying to go home left to travel through two metro stations (yes, two, the others were closed for security reasons): L’Enfant Plaza and Federal Center Southwest on the other side of the mall. Have I used the word “zoo” yet to describe the scene? We waited in line one hour and a half just to get inside the metro station. Let’s not talk about how long it took to get on a train. Anyone who has been in Tokyo during rush hour will have some concept of the sensation as we crunched together into the cars. If anyone was feeling lonely, you wouldn’t be after that cozy ride. Despite the cold and the delays, though, people on the whole weren’t pushing or crowding. We were all still jazzed about the day’s events. The glow lasted the entire way home.

Still celebrating,
Doris Estelle Long

Share
Posted in Feminism and Politics | Comments Off on Inauguration Memories

Yasmeen Hassan, “A War on Pakistan’s Schoolgirls”

From the WaPo:

I have such fond childhood memories of summer holidays in the Swat Valley in Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province, a place well known among Pakistanis for its breathtaking views, cool summer climate and lush fruit orchards. But today the Swat Valley is experiencing heartbreaking pressures, as the Taliban strike with disconcerting regularity and, among other atrocities, impose a ban on the education of girls.

Even before this ban was put in place on Jan. 15, more than 100 schools for girls in Swat, as well as more than 150 such schools in the greater Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), had been shut down, many after being bombed or torched, leaving approximately 100,000 girls out of school. Radio announcements warned girls that they could be attacked with acid if they dared to attend school, and teachers have been threatened and killed. Last Monday, five more Swat Valley schools were bombed.

The attacks and threats have not been confined to schoolgirls. Women and girls have been ordered to wear full veils. Directives have been issued requiring that women be accompanied by male family members in public places and forbidding women from carrying compulsory government identification cards displaying their photographs. About a dozen women have been shot for “immoral activities,” including Bakht Zeba, a 45-year-old social worker committed to advancing girls’ education. The area seems to be in competition with Afghanistan over which will establish the worst record on women’s rights.

The Pakistani and Afghan governments have responded similarly to the Taliban’s penchant for terrorizing the population. A few months ago, Afghanistan sought to enter into negotiations with the Taliban, a precondition of which would be the imposition of sharia (Islamic law). While those talks have not yet gone forward, Pakistan seems to be on the brink of accepting enforcement of sharia in the FATA territories. Reports indicate that more than 70 Taliban courts already operate in the Swat Valley, a first step toward implementation of the Taliban’s interpretation of sharia. That the government is open to negotiating on this issue shows that it has no regard for what such a move would mean for Pakistani women.

Read the entire piece here.

Share
Posted in Feminism and Law, Feminism and Politics, Feminism and Religion, Sisters In Other Nations | Comments Off on Yasmeen Hassan, “A War on Pakistan’s Schoolgirls”

EQUALITY NOW CALLS ON THE UNITED STATES TO CONDITION AID TO PAKISTAN ON MEASURES TAKEN BY THE PAKISTANI GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT GIRLS AND ENSURE THEIR RIGHT TO EDUCATION

From Equality Now:

On 20 January 2009 Equality Now issued a News Alert calling on the Government of Pakistan to protect girls and ensure their right to education following growing fundamentalist pressure in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and in Swat in Pakistan, where the Taliban have imposed a ban on girls’ education from 15 January 2009 forward and where there has been an alarming increase in violence and discrimination against women and girls.  Please click here for further information.

The Obama administration has pledged to triple non-military aid to Pakistan via the passage of the Biden-Lugar Bill of 2008 (which is likely to be reintroduced in the Senate in 2009 by Senators Kerry and Lugar).   This bill contains a package of $7.5 billion in non-military aid to Pakistan over the next five years ($1.5 billion a year).

Equality Now would like to urge its Women’s Action Network members in the United States to contact the following officials and draw their attention to the growing extent of violence and discrimination against women and girls by the Taliban in FATA and Swat in Pakistan, and in particular to the ban imposed on girls’ education by the Taliban through the use of force and threats.  Ask that aid to Pakistan be conditioned explicitly on the Pakistani government taking active steps to uphold and protect the rights of women and girls, including effectively countering the Taliban’s ban on girls’ education by ensuring girls safe access to education.

Senator Richard Lugar
306 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-1401
Tel: (202) 224-4814
Fax: (202) 228-0360
Email: senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov

Senator John Kerry
Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
304 Russell Bldg.
Third Floor
Washington D.C. 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2742
Fax: (202) 224-8525
Email via website: http://kerry.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Please also send copies of your messages to the U.S. Vice President and Secretary of State:

Mr.   Joseph Biden
Vice President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500

Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520

Please keep Equality Now updated on your work and send copies of any replies you receive to: info@equalitynow.org

Share
Posted in Feminism and Law, Feminism and Politics, Guest Blogger, Sisters In Other Nations | Comments Off on EQUALITY NOW CALLS ON THE UNITED STATES TO CONDITION AID TO PAKISTAN ON MEASURES TAKEN BY THE PAKISTANI GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT GIRLS AND ENSURE THEIR RIGHT TO EDUCATION

What if you plan on e-mailing your professor?

Professor What If has some advice and observations here. Below is an excerpt:

Every time a semester is about to start or has just started, my email box is inundated with”URGENT”pleas from students. Many of the things they are writing about are in fact not urgent at all. Rather, most often the information they seek could be easily found at the campus website. Another common”urgent”type of message relates to the fact they would like to add my class to their schedule AND would like to me to give them special consideration for umpteen different (almost always non-urgent) reasons. So, to those of you out there starting a new semester, before you email your Professors, please consider the following (rather cranky) suggestions:

1. For goodness sake, spell her/his name right! And, on that note, would editing for spelling/grammar kill you?

The conclusion is very trenchant too, and says in pertinent part:

Remember that such correspondence shapes your professor’s impression of you. If you come off as arrogant, demanding, self-centered, selfish, lazy, etc, many professors just might remember this about you. We are, after all, mere mortals.

Share
Posted in Law Teaching, Sociolinguistics | Comments Off on What if you plan on e-mailing your professor?

Yolanda Young, “What Eric Holder’s Tenure at Covington & Burling Says About Blacks and BigLaw”

Op-Ed here at the HuffPo.

Share
Posted in Feminism and Law, Feminism and the Workplace, Legal Profession, Race and Racism | Comments Off on Yolanda Young, “What Eric Holder’s Tenure at Covington & Burling Says About Blacks and BigLaw”

Interview with Lilly Ledbetter

Via Womenstake.

Share
Posted in Feminism and Law, Women and Economics | Comments Off on Interview with Lilly Ledbetter

Anna Quindlen, “The End of Swagger”

Here are the first two paragraphs of Quindlen’s recent Newsweek column:

As Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton begin to use their uncommon authority and intelligence to implement a new American international agenda, it might behoove them to read a speech given some years ago in Beijing. It read in part: “If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights for one and for all. Let us not forget that among those rights are the right to speak freely:and the right to be heard. Women must enjoy the rights to participate fully in the social and political lives of their countries if we want freedom and democracy to thrive and endure.”

Secretary Clinton was first lady when she spoke those words at a United Nations conference on women in 1995. Some of the participants wept to hear an influential American commit to a view of the world so many of them shared: that the way for nations to prosper was to pay attention to women’s rights, women’s welfare and women’s concerns.

Read it all! Via.

Share
Posted in Feminism and Families, Feminism and Politics, Sisters In Other Nations | Comments Off on Anna Quindlen, “The End of Swagger”

What Kind of Rule?: Rape Shield Ruling by the Court of Appeals of Minnesota Raises Question, What Kind of Rule is the Rape Shield Rule?

The recent opinion of the Court of Appeals of Minnesota in State v. Bauer, 2009 WL 112842 (Minn.App. 2009), raises an essential question:    What  kind of rule is the Rape Shield Rule?   And I think that Minnesota courts have answered that question correctly.

In Bauer,  Jeffrey Bauer appealed from  his convictions  on two counts of criminal sexual conduct that he allegedly committed against his neighbor, A.E.B., while she was less than sixteen years old.    And one of the grounds for his appeal was that the trial court erred by precluding him from presenting evidence that A.E.B. had allegedly made prior false allegations of sexual abuse.

The trial court had deemed this evidence inadmissible pursuant to Minnesota’s Rape Shield Rule, Minnesota Rule of Evidence 412, which states in relevant part that

In a prosecution for acts of criminal sexual conduct, including attempts or any act of criminal sexual predatory conduct, evidence of the victim’s previous sexual conduct should not be admitted nor shall any reference to such conduct be made in the presence of the jury, except by court under the procedure provided in rule 412.   Such evidence can be admissible only if the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by its inflammatory or prejudicial nature and only in [certain] circumstances.  

Now, proving prior false allegations of sexual abuse is not one of the enumerated exception/circumstances in Minnesota Rule of Evidence 412, but the  Court of Appeals  noted that it had previously read such an exception into the rule in prior precedent. See State v. Goldenstein,  505 N.W.2d 332, 340 (Minn.App. 1993).   The problem for Bauer, however, was that the Court of Appeals rejected his argument that the  trial court improperly placed  the burden of proof on him to prove that A.E.B. had in fact made prior  false allegations and  affirmed the trial court’s ruling that he failed to fulfill his burden.   According to the court, “the burden is on a defendant to show that a victim’s sexual history is relevant and should be admitted despite the rape-shield rule.”  

As I noted above, I think that the court properly placed the burden on the defendant, but it certainly was not a foregone conclusion.   Like its federal counterpart, Federal Rule of Evidence 412, Minnesota Rule of Evidence 412  states that an alleged victim’s previous sexual conduct in a criminal case is generally inadmissible unless it meets some exception and passes the Rule 403 balancing test in that its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice that it creates.

The problem that this creates for the court’s conclusion is that Rule 403  is a  Rule that presumes the admissibility of evidence and traditionally places the burden of proof on the party opposing its admission.   Indeed this point is driven home by the civil exception to the federal Rape Shield Rule, which provides in relevant part  that

In a civil case, evidence offered to prove the sexual behavior or sexual predisposition of any alleged victim is admissible if it is otherwise admissible under these rules and its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to any victim and of unfair prejudice to any party.

According to the Advisory Committee’s Note  to this Rule,

This test for admitting evidence offered to prove sexual behavior or sexual propensity in civil cases differs in three respects from the general rule governing admissibility set forth in Rule 403.   First, it reverses the usual procedure spelled out in Rule 403 by shifting the burden to the proponent to demonstrate admissibility rather than making the opponent justify exclusion of the evidence.

An obvious implication that one could draw from this language is that the burden of proof is on the prosecution in a criminal case to prove that one of the exceptions to the Rape Shield Rule does not apply.   But this takes me back to the question that opened this post:   What  kind of rule is the Rape Shield Rule?

In placing the burden of proof on the defendant in Bauer, the  Court of Appeals relied  upon its previous opinion in State v. Crims, 540 N.W.2d 860 (Minn.App. 1995), which placed the burden on the defendant because  “evidence of sexual activity with third persons cannot withstand a rule 403 weighing unless special circumstances enhance its probative value.”    In other words, Rape Shield Rule  rulings are not typical Rule 403  rulings.

And, according to Crims, the reason that they are not typical is because, unlike what some courts have found, Rape Shield Rules are not  “principally…a means of excluding evidence that might embarrass sexual assault victims, essentially forming an exception to the general practice of admitting all relevant evidence.”   Instead, they “serve[] to emphasize the general irrelevance of a victim’s sexual history, not to remove relevant evidence from the jury’s consideration.”

Based upon everything I have read about Rape Shield Rules, I agree with the Court of Appeals of Minnesota.   Rape Shield Rules are not only in place because we want to prevent the embarassment of alleged victims but also because we have recognized that an individual’s prior sexual acts usually tell us nothing about whether they consented to the sexual act at issue.   Now, there are some exceptions to the general rule, but they are just that, exceptions, and the onus should be on the defendant to prove such special circumstances.

-Colin Miller

Share
Posted in Acts of Violence, Coerced Sex | 2 Comments

Vital Juncture for Women’s Rights Policy at the State Department

In her confirmation hearing last week Hilary Clinton was asked by Barbara Boxer to talk about how she plans to use the office of the Secretary of State to better the”status of women in the world.”She was particularly interested in the problems of violence against women and sex trafficking, making explicit reference to the series of op-eds that Nicholas Kristof has published on these issues.

Not surprisingly, secretary-designate Clinton offered a strong response with respect to her agenda on women’s rights. She told the Senate panel:

I have also read closely Nick Kristof’s articles over the last many months, but in particular the last weeks, on the young women that he has both rescued from prostitution and met who have been enslaved and abused, tortured in every way: physically, emotionally, morally.

And I take very seriously the function of the State Department to lead our government through the Office on Human Trafficking to do all that we can to end this modern form of slavery. We have sex slavery, we have wage slavery, and it is primarily a slavery of girls and women.

So we’re going to have a very active women’s office, a very active office on trafficking. We’re going to be speaking out consistently and strongly against discrimination and oppression of women and slavery in particular, because I think that is in keeping not only with American values, as we all recognize, but American national security interests as well.

While these comments from now-Secretary of State Clinton gained applause from some precincts of the women’s and human rights community, they made some of us sit up in alarm. Not only was Mrs. Clinton misstating frequently repeated”facts”about sex trafficking, her answer to Senator Boxer signaled the continuation of the misguided Bush policies on this issue – policies heavily influenced by a particular camp in the women’s rights community that sees sex in general, and prostitution in particular, as the root of all evil for women. This ideology – one that has been shown all over the world to more often harm rather than help women in precarious situations – threatens to become the official policy of the Obama Administration if we aren’t careful.

Read full entry here

– Katherine Franke

Share
Posted in Acts of Violence, Coerced Sex, Feminism and Law, Feminism and Politics | 1 Comment

The Obameter: Tracking Obama’s Campaign Promises

From Politifact:

PolitiFact has compiled about 500 promises that Barack Obama made during the campaign and is tracking their progress on our Obameter. We rate their status as No Action, In the Works or Stalled. Once we find action is completed, we rate them Promise Kept, Compromise or Promise Broken.

View the list of promises and related graphics here. One great feature of the Internet is the ability to track the performance of politicians in real time like this.

–Ann Bartow

Share
Posted in Acts of Violence, Feminism and Politics, Feminism and Technology | 5 Comments

Star Trek Barbie

Via. In response some dood named Harry Knowles writes:

Star Trek Barbies? That’s how to make future babes geeks!!!

Hey folks, Harry here… with a brilliant concept. TREK BARBIES!!! Yes, every little girl in the world needs Star Trek Barbies, so that in like 15 years all future geeks will have excellent geek brides. Either that… or geek boys will be seen playing with these and get pummeled mercilessly until they are very nearly dead. …

Harry’s theory as I understand it seems to be that playing with these Sta Trek Barbies will convert girls into geeks who want to marry geek men, but boys who do so will be gay bashed.

–Ann Bartow

Share
Posted in Feminism and Culture, Sexism in the Media | Comments Off on Star Trek Barbie

Female Researchers Seek to Decode Female Desire

In this week’s New York Times Magazine, Daniel Bergner writes about research into women’s desire and arousal, in What Do Women Want?. Here is an interesting passage regarding the current focus on biological difference and sexual desire:

Female_symbol To account partly for the recent flourishing of research like Chivers’s, Heiman pointed to the arrival of Viagra in the late ’90s. Though aimed at men, the drug, which transformed the treatment of impotence, has dispersed a kind of collateral electric current into the area of women’s sexuality, not only generating an effort : mostly futile so far : to find drugs that can foster female desire as reliably as Viagra and its chemical relatives have facilitated erections, but also helping, indirectly, to inspire the search for a full understanding of women’s lust. This search may reflect, as well, a cultural and scientific trend, a stress on the deterministic role of biology, on nature’s dominance over nurture : and, because of this, on innate differences between the sexes, particularly in the primal domain of sex.”Masters and Johnson saw men and women as extremely similar,”Heiman said.”Now it’s research on differences that gets funded, that gets published, that the public is interested in.”She wondered aloud whether the trend will eventually run its course and reverse itself, but these days it may be among the factors that infuse sexology’s interest in the giant forest.

-Caitlin Borgmann (cross-posted at Reproductive Rights Prof Blog)

Share
Posted in Feminism and Culture, Feminism and Science | Comments Off on Female Researchers Seek to Decode Female Desire

The Iranian government has commuted the execution of Kobra Najjar, an Iranian woman sentenced to death by stoning for adultery – a judgment based on the prostitution her abusive husband forced upon her in order to sustain his heroin addiction – but the stoning sentence has been converted into 100 lashes.

From Equality Now:

Kobra has already served eight years in prison as an accomplice to the murder of her husband who was killed by a sympathetic client, plus a further three years awaiting execution.  Kobra has recently suffered from a stroke whilst in prison and has been spending her days under very difficult conditions.  Subjecting her to lashes not only violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which Iran is a party, as it clearly prohibits torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment, but could cause serious harm and potentially be life-threatening.

News reports in Iran have also indicated that two sisters, Zohreh and Azar Kabiri, who had previously been lashed as punishment for adultery and subsequently recharged and sentenced to stoning, have had their sentences for stoning overturned due to insufficient evidence and will shortly be released. Please click here for Equality Now’s Action calling for the release of Zohreh and Azar: http://www.equalitynow.org/english/pressroom/rapid_response_alert/rra_iran_en.html

Please immediately contact Iran’s Head of Judiciary Ayatollah Shahroudi* welcoming news of Zohreh and Azr Kabiri’s pending release and urging him to commute Kobra’s sentence for lashing and call for her immediate and unconditional release from prison.   Call on him to do all that he can to end the cruel punishment of stoning once and for all.

*The contact information below functioned when previously tested, but you may encounter delivery problems so please keep trying to send your message.  Thank you for taking action!

His Excellency Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi
Head of the Judiciary
c/o Ministry of Justice
Park-e Shahr
Teheran
Islamic Republic of Iran
Email: iripr@iranjudiciary.org, irjpr@iranjudiciary.com and info@dadgostary-tehran.ir
Phone: +98 21 22741002, +98 21 22741003, +98 21 22741004, +98 21 22741005

Please also contact the Iranian embassy in your country. The following link may help you find the contact information: http://www.embassyworld.com/embassy/Iran/Iran.html

In the United States please contact:
Interests Section of the Islamic Republic of Iran
(Housed in the Embassy of Pakistan)
2209 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: (202) 965-4990, (202) 965-4992, (202) 965-4993, (202) 965-4994, (202) 965-4999
Fax: (202) 965-1073
Email: requests@daftar.org

In the United Kingdom please contact:
Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran
16 Prince’s Gate
London SW7 1PT
Phone: 0207 225 3000
Fax: 0207 589 4440
Email: info@iran-embassy.org.uk

Share
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The Iranian government has commuted the execution of Kobra Najjar, an Iranian woman sentenced to death by stoning for adultery – a judgment based on the prostitution her abusive husband forced upon her in order to sustain his heroin addiction – but the stoning sentence has been converted into 100 lashes.

A conference entitled “The Politics of Reproduction: New Technologies of Life” will be hosted by the Barnard Center for Research on Women in New York City on February 28, 2009

“The Politics of Reproduction” will focus on the global social, economic and political repercussions of new forms of reproduction, including assisted reproductive technology (ART) and transnational adoption. These new technologies have created a “baby business” that is largely unregulated and that raises a number of important social and ethical questions. Do these new technologies place women and children at risk? Should there be limits on how reproductive technologies are used? How should we respond ethically to the ability of these technologies to test for genetic illnesses? And how can we ensure that marginalized individuals, for example, people with disabilities, women of color, and low-income women, have equal access to these new technologies and adoption practices? The conference will feature numerous experts in the field of reproductive rights and reproductive justice, including:

Lori Andrews, Distinguished Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law, Director of the Institute for Science, Law, and Technology at the Illinois Institute of Technology, and an expert in biotechnologies.

Sarah Franklin, Professor of Social Studies of Biomedicine and Associate Director of the BIOS Centre at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Michele Goodwin, Everett Fraser Professor in Law at the University of Minnesota and founder of the Center for the Study of Race and Bioethics at DePaul College of Law.

Rayna Rapp, Professor of Anthropology at New York University and author of the award-winning Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America.

Loretta Ross, National Coordinator and founding member of SisterSong, a reproductive justice collective.

Debora Spar, President of Barnard College and author of The Baby Business: How Money, Science, and Politics Drive the Commerce of Conception.

More information about the event and a complete list of panelists can be found here!

Share
Posted in Feminism and Law, Feminism and Science, Feminism and Technology, Reproductive Rights, Upcoming Conferences | Comments Off on A conference entitled “The Politics of Reproduction: New Technologies of Life” will be hosted by the Barnard Center for Research on Women in New York City on February 28, 2009

Touro Law Center’s Journal of Race, Gender and Ethnicity presents “Transgender Law: Challenging the Boundaries of Law and Gender” Friday, February 20, 2009 8:30 A.M. – 3:00 P.M.

REGISTRATION INFORMATION HERE! Co-Sponsored by LeGaL (the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Law Association of Greater New York) and the Long Island GLBT Community Center.

8:30 a.m. – 9:10 a.m.: Registration and Continental Breakfast
9:10 a.m. – 9:20 a.m.: Welcome Remarks
– Dean Lawrence Raful, Touro Law Center
9:20 a.m. – 10:40 a.m.: Session 1: Gender and Access to Justice
– Moderator: James G. Durham, Head of Public Services, Gould Law Library, Touro Law Center
– Immigration Law and the Transgender Client, Victoria Neilson, Esq., Legal Director, Immigration Equality
– Eight, Hate or too Late? Did California Transsexuals Survive the Proposition Eight Vote?, Katrina Rose, Esq., Doctoral Candidate, Department of History, University of Iowa
– Transgender Issues in Criminal Law: Finding a Place for Transgender Individuals in Prisons, Benish Shah, Esq., Associate, Stroock & Strook & Lavan, LLP
10:40 a.m. – 10:50am: Break
10:50 a.m. – 12:10 p.m.: Session 2: Gender as Legal Boundary
– Moderator: Mik Kinkead, Trangender Services Coordinator, Long Island GLBT Community Center
– From Sex-testing to the Stockholm Consensus: The Tenuous Lex Sportiva of the Transgender Athlete, Professor Shayna Sigman, Associate Professor of Law, Touro Law Center
– Transgender Access to Healthcare and the Role of Medicine in Transgender Civil Rights, Michael D. Silverman, Esq., Executive Director, Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund
– Transgender Name Changes and Legal Adjudications of Gender, Franklin Romeo, Esq., Staff Attorney, Sylvia Rivera Law Project
12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.: Lunch
1:00 p.m. – 2:50 p.m.: Transgender Identity and Framing Transgender Equality
– Moderator: David Kilmnick, Phd, MSW, Chief Executive Officer, Long Island GLBT Community Center
– The Debate over GID Reform: How does it play out in the Courts?, Dru Levasseur, Esq., Staff Attorney, Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund
– Rights to Gender Self-Determination as a Component of the Constitutional Right to Privacy, Dr. Jillian T. Weiss, Esq., Professor of Law and Society, Ramapo College
– Transitional Discrimination, Professor Elizabeth Glazer, Associate Professor of Law, Hofstra Law School
– Interlocking Systems of Oppression: Disability, Gender and Race in the Context of Transgender Legal Claims, Kyle Kirkup, Candidate for Baccalaureate of Law and Senior Editor of Ottawa Law Review, University of Ottawa
2:50 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.: Closing Remarks
– Professor Meredith R. Miller, Assistant Professor of Law, Touro Law Center

Share
Posted in Feminism and Law, LGBT Rights, Upcoming Conferences | Comments Off on Touro Law Center’s Journal of Race, Gender and Ethnicity presents “Transgender Law: Challenging the Boundaries of Law and Gender” Friday, February 20, 2009 8:30 A.M. – 3:00 P.M.

Sex Ed That’s, Well, Quite Educational

I’ve written before that pornography is not necessarily a good form of sex ed.  Depends on the porn, in theory.  To me, this much is clear: when porn embraces abuse, degradation, humiliation, torture, that’s not sex ed.  

Consider the question’s flip side: is sex ed a “good” form of pornography?  Depends on the sex-ed, I suppose.  I’m reserving judgment for now, but I appreciate the well-done Cherry TV website (subtitle: “Juicy Talk for Women”) for its lively, informative discussions.  It’s far less how-to-please-your-man than Cosmo, and infinitely more interesting than those sex ed films I remember from the 1970s.

-Bridget Crawford

Share
Posted in Feminist Blogs Of Interest, Women's Health | Comments Off on Sex Ed That’s, Well, Quite Educational

Evangelical Anti-Feminism

Alternet account of “The Patriarchy Movement” here.

Share
Posted in Feminism and Religion | Comments Off on Evangelical Anti-Feminism

On the reclamation of sexist slurs.

Lauredhel has an extensive post here about language reclamation issues at Hoyden About Town. Below is a short excerpt, but you should read the whole thing!

… As with just about any topic in feminism, when stripped to the bone, reclamation about power. The patriarchal position is that people with power get to set the agenda, control the discourse, define people in pejorative terms, and decide what is or isn’t offensive – not only to themselves, but to others. They place themselves firmly in the subject position, and unilaterally assume the role of making decisions for less powerful people – the objects.

Feminism is about turning that dominance model on its head in every realm, including language. One recurring feature of feminist discussion about pejorative speech is that the person with the lesser power gets to decide what is offensive to them, and that we should be listening to their voices, not those of the dominant group. In the case of sexist language, women have the voices that count, the voices that all need to listen to. For racist speech, women of colour. For classist speech, poor women. For disablist speech, disabled women. For anti-lesbian speech, lesbian women. Fattist speech, fat women. And so on, and so on.

Linguistic reclamation is the re-appropriation of a term used by those in power to demean and disparage those in a less powerful group. One way in which women refuse the object position and reclaim their subjectivity is to take back control of pejorative terms such as”bitch”,”slut”,”chick”,”crone”, and”harridan”. …

Share
Posted in Feminism and Culture, Sociolinguistics | Comments Off on On the reclamation of sexist slurs.

Well done, Gov. David A. Paterson

From the NYT:

Gov. David A. Paterson has selected Representative Kirsten Gillibrand, a 42-year-old congresswoman from upstate who is known for bold political moves and centrist policy positions, to fill the United States Senate seat vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to a person who spoke to the governor early Friday.

Share
Posted in Feminism and Politics | Comments Off on Well done, Gov. David A. Paterson

Senate Passes Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

Yesterday, the Senate passed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.   As has been written about many times on this blog, the bill would overturn the Supreme Court’s decision from 2007 that severely restricted equal pay claims by imposing an almost impossible burden on plaintiffs to file their claim when they were first paid unequally, even if they didn’t find out about it until much later.

The final vote was 61-36 (Ted Kennedy did not vote, and there are two open seats (MN and NY)).   All Democrats voted for the bill, and all four female Republican Senators voted for the bill.   So the bottom line is that equal pay for women is opposed by Republican men (except Arlen Specter, who also voted for the bill).   I guess this can be filed under “tell me something I didn’t know.”

– David S. Cohen

Share
Posted in Feminism and Law, Feminism and Politics | Comments Off on Senate Passes Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

Thanks to the ABA Law Journal for featuring FLP as its “Blawg of the Week”

Check it out!

Share
Posted in Blog Administration | Comments Off on Thanks to the ABA Law Journal for featuring FLP as its “Blawg of the Week”

Women, Foreclsoures and Sub Prime Loans

Philadelphia has a unique approach to helping homeowners avoid further predatory lending practices and foreclosure auctions, and Women’s Enews has the story.

Share
Posted in Feminism and Law, Women and Economics | Comments Off on Women, Foreclsoures and Sub Prime Loans

Don’t Most of Us Wish…

This CNN article asserts that law professors (Number 14 on the list of “Jobs with under 40-hour work weeks”) work an average of 35.2 hours per week and 1664 hours each year, and earn $158,353.   To which I reply: No, no, and not even close. Okay, there are law professors who work 35 hours or less at the job each week, using the rest of their time to do consulting work or who knows what, and there is a special institutional expression that describes them: “arguments against tenure.” And there are law professors who earn $158,353, most at far wealthier law schools than mine, and disproportionately few of them female.

–Ann Bartow

Share
Posted in Academia, Law Schools, Law Teaching | Comments Off on Don’t Most of Us Wish…

Benson on”Failure to Arrest: A Pilot Study of Police Response to Domestic Violence in Rural Illinois”

 

Sara Benson (Illinois) has posted to SSRN her working paper entitled”Failure to Arrest:   A Pilot Study of Police Response to Domestic Violence in Rural Illinois.”   It is a qualitative research study conducted in rural Illinois regarding police enforcement of domestic violence laws.

Here is the abstract:

The need for specific inquiry into rural domestic violence is pressing because rural survivors face barriers to legal and economic access, assistance, and development that are compounded by their isolated physical location. However, there is a paucity of legal discourse addressing the issue of rural domestic violence. In particular, it is important to consider law enforcement response to domestic violence calls because police officers often serve as the gateway to the legal community through first-response action. This Article, which was the first focus-group based study of survivors’ perceptions of law enforcement response to domestic violence in the rural Midwest, points out the disparity between law and action in rural Illinois as detailed by the survivor narratives. The survivors participating in focus groups detailed ineffective police responses to domestic violence calls. The gap between law and practice is expounded by interposing the legal obligations provided by Illinois statute with the narratives of police inaction and failure to arrest. Then, a method of strengthening police responses to domestic violence calls in rural areas is proposed in order to respond to the issues presented in the survivor narratives. The proposal includes the use of detailed first response forms that will encourage officers to engage in risk assessment techniques in order to better gage whether an arrest is warranted in response to a domestic violence call. Additionally, the form will serve as a reminder of statutorily mandated duties imposed on law enforcement officers. Through the use of these methods, rural officers can respond more effectively to domestic violence calls and better serve rural survivors of domestic abuse.

The complete working paper is available here.  

 

-Bridget Crawford

Share
Posted in Acts of Violence, Feminism and Families, Feminism and Law | Comments Off on Benson on”Failure to Arrest: A Pilot Study of Police Response to Domestic Violence in Rural Illinois”

Pamela Foohey, “Child Support and (In)Ability to Pay: The Case for the Cost Shares Model”

Forthcoming in the Journal of Juvenile Law & Policy, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2009

The Abstract:
Currently enacted child support guidelines primarily focus on maintaining children’s economic well-being when a single household is split into two. This article argues that this focus discounts another consideration which, when combined with the current analysis, could further advance children’s well-being: the ability of parents to pay. An analysis of payment characteristics demonstrates that lower child support obligations may increase the amount of child support paid on average. Lowering presumptive obligations will make lower-income parents better able and more likely to pay their obligations, thereby increasing the amount of child support paid to lower-income children, while at most only marginally decreasing the amount of support paid by middle and upper income parents, which, when paid at all, usually exceeds the minimum obligations established by guidelines. The Cost Shares model of child support guidelines implicitly incorporates payment ability into the existing analysis, yielding slightly lower obligations, and thereby making it a better and easily implemented alternative to current guidelines.

Downloadable here.

Share
Posted in Feminism and Families, Feminism and Law, Feminist Legal Scholarship | Comments Off on Pamela Foohey, “Child Support and (In)Ability to Pay: The Case for the Cost Shares Model”

“He Is (Or, We Are)”

Professor Lolita Buckner Inniss on the inauguration of President Obama.

Share
Posted in Feminism and Politics, Race and Racism | Comments Off on “He Is (Or, We Are)”

GENDER, PARENTING, AND THE LAW: A Symposium Saturday, February 7, 2009 at Stanford Law School

Parenting, Gender, and the Law is a symposium sponsored by the Stanford Journal for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, with support from the Clayman Institute, Stanford University Feminist Studies Department, Graduate Student Council at Stanford University, and Stanford Law School. The symposium will provide a forum for academics, legal practitioners, and community organizers and activists to share ground-breaking work on a number of urgent parenthood-related civil rights issues. The Symposium will be open to Stanford students, faculty, and the community at large.

Cherrie Moraga, writer, poet, and playwright, and Artist-in-Resident at Stanford University, will give the Opening Address.

Dorothy Roberts, Kirkland and Ellis Professor at Northwestern University Law School, will give the Keynote Address.

Panel topics include: New Reproductive Technologies and the Law, Parenting and the Criminal Justice System, Parenting and Labor, and LGBT parenting. Each panel will discuss issues of gender, state views of parenthood, and the legal rights of parents. Panel descriptions are here. The agenda can be viewed here.

More information here!

Share
Posted in Feminism and Families, Feminism and Law, Upcoming Conferences | Comments Off on GENDER, PARENTING, AND THE LAW: A Symposium Saturday, February 7, 2009 at Stanford Law School

On this 2009 anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, the Center for Reproductive Rights calls on President Barack Obama to strike the Hyde Amendment which bans funding for medically necessary abortion from his proposed budget and support Congressional repeal of these funding restrictions.

During his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama came out against Hyde, saying that the federal government should not use its dollars to intrude upon a poor woman’s decision whether or not to carry her pregnancy to term or to selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to that exercise in a manner that the government disapproves. We ask that the President take action and rescind the policy in keeping with his previously stated beliefs.

For thirty-six years, women in this country have had the right to obtain safe, legal abortion. But since 1977 when Hyde was first enacted, low-income women have been deprived of that right by anti-choice politicians intent on doing away with a woman’s access to abortion altogether.

The Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funds from being used to pay for abortion except under extremely limited circumstances. As a result, a woman who relies on Medicaid cannot get an abortion in most circumstances:even if her health is jeopardized by her pregnancy:unless she is able to cover the entire cost out-of-pocket. Similar restrictions have been imposed on women who rely on the health benefits provided to federal employees, military personnel and their dependents, women served by the Indian Health Service, Peace Corps volunteers, Medicare enrollees, women in federal prisons, and low-income women in the District of Columbia.

These restrictions patently discriminate against women. Abortion is a health service only used by women, and it is the only medically necessary service not covered by Medicaid for instance. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonpartisan research organization, as many as 35% of women who are eligible for the program and seeking an abortion are prevented from making the personal decision about their own lives and forced to carry their pregnancies to term. On the other hand, virtually all other health services are covered.

Since Medicaid is the primary provider of reproductive healthcare for low-income minority communities, Hyde also disproportionately affects women of color. Many of these women are already struggling with the challenges of supporting a family on limited resources and now, the ever-growing burden of the economic recession.

Under Hyde, a poor woman must often delay obtaining a medically necessary abortion while she tries to raise the funds. The longer she waits, the more it costs and the greater the risks to her health.

President Barack Obama’s leadership provides a tremendous opportunity for the U.S. government to stop excluding women’s specific healthcare needs from federal health programs based on political preferences and join the 17 states across the country that pay for poor women’s medically necessary abortions. As the California Supreme Court ruled in 1981,”There is no greater power than the power of the purse. If the government can use it to nullify constitutional rights, by conditioning benefits only upon the sacrifice of such rights, the Bill of Rights could eventually become a yellowing scrap of paper. Once the state furnishes medical care to poor women in general, it cannot withdraw part of that care solely because a woman exercises her constitutional right to choose an abortion.”

Roe v. Wade recognized that a woman’s ability to make reproductive decisions essential to her life and health. On the day commemorating this landmark case, the Center for Reproductive Rights urges the new president to protect the dignity and health of all women by striking restrictions on public funding for medically necessary abortions.

Click here for more information about the Center’s U.S. Federal Policy Agenda

–Nancy Northup, President Center for Reproductive Rights

Share
Posted in Feminism and Law, Guest Blogger, Reproductive Rights | Comments Off on On this 2009 anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, the Center for Reproductive Rights calls on President Barack Obama to strike the Hyde Amendment which bans funding for medically necessary abortion from his proposed budget and support Congressional repeal of these funding restrictions.

Happy Roe Anniversary Day!

36 years ago today, the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade.   Whatever you think of the decision itself (and there are plenty of feminists who criticize the decision from a feminist perspective), the effect of it has been to make abortion in this country, for a large number of women, a safe, common, and non-criminal procedure.   Remember this when you ever talk to someone about Roe:   The case is not about whether women will get abortions.   They will no matter what the law is, probably at roughly the same numbers.   Rather, the case is about whether women who get abortions will be able to do so without compromising their health and their families, let alone their and their doctor’s criminal record.

A huge problem remains in this country, despite Roe.   And that is access to abortion.   For many women in this country, Roe may be the law but it isn’t reality.   Thanks to over-regulation from the state and threatening and violent protests from anti-choice groups, there are too few abortion providers.   Moreover, thanks to the Hyde Amendment and the dozens of states that have similar versions in their own laws, poor women cannot receive Medicaid for abortion procedures and must sacrifice money for shelter, food, and clothes, usually for young children, in order to have an abortion.   Eliminating that bind for poor people needing medical care is precisely why Medicaid exists, but Hyde places hundreds of women in that bind every day.

As we celebrate Roe and what it means for women, we also must work to make abortion more accessible.   Supporting abortion providers and lobbying to eliminate Hyde (with a pro-choice President and pro-choice Congress, this should be a high priority) are the least we can do.

– David S. Cohen

Share
Posted in Reproductive Rights | 1 Comment

“Report Describes Concerns Over Treatment of Detained Women Immigrants”

Head on over to Our Bodies, Our Blog to read the post with this title. It highlights a report concerning the treatment of women held in immigration detention centers in Arizona.

Share
Posted in Feminism and Law, Feminist Blogs Of Interest, Race and Racism | Comments Off on “Report Describes Concerns Over Treatment of Detained Women Immigrants”