Thursday, November 3, 2016
These are dangerous times for judicial appointments, according to Sally J. Kenney, an expert on judicial selection and social movements.
Kenney, the author of the book “Gender and Justice: Why Women in the Judiciary Really Matter," was the keynote speaker for “The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project."
. . . .
Kenney said it is important that more women and minority men serve on the bench, and that it is no longer enough that judges are well qualified.
“We need to know what their positions are on domestic violence and sexual assault,” she said. “Do they believe boys need their fathers even if those fathers were batterers? And joint custody puts mothers at risk? Do they believe women routinely lie about domestic violence in divorce cases or sexual assault in general? Do they easily dismiss women’s fear of stalkers and harassers? Do police officers and those serving in the military who are more likely than the general population to be batterers deserve to retain their firearms even after threatening intimates?”
Judges should consistently uphold rules even when those rules go against the political party of the president who appointed them, Kenney said, adding that senators should be held accountable for failing to do their job.
“No one disputes whether Merrick Garland is qualified. No one thinks he has extreme political views,” she said. “Now it appears senators can just say ‘no.’”
Kenney also said it is important that judges be willing to change positions when confronted with social facts.
“I think we should be able to demand that judges be the most distinguished members of the legal profession, without having to turn them into deductive machines or robots or think of them as neutrals,” she said.
“I also believe the issue is not the difference women make on the bench, but the message their absence sends,” she added. “It is important to have women and minority men on the bench.
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
The US Feminist Judgments Conference is this week here at Akron Law.
The background materials for the conference include articles and essays exploring the foundational ideas of the conference, including what feminism means, what feminist judgments are and why we might need them, and the difference feminist decision making might make. To review the materials, go here: US Feminist Judgments CLE Materials
Table of Contents:
Kathyrn Stanchi, Linda Berger, & Bridget Crawford, Introduction to the Book: Feminist Judgments (Cambridge 2016)
Sally Kenney, Thinking About Gender and Judging (2008)
Sally Kenney, Wise Latinas, Strategic Minnesotans, and the Feminist Standpoint: The Backlash Against Women Judges, Thomas Jefferson L.Review (2013)
Heather Roberts & Laura Sweeney, Why (Re)Write Judgments? (2014)
Erika Rackley, What a Difference Difference Makes (2008)
Rosemary Hunter, Can Feminist Judges Make a Difference? (2008)
Rosemary Hunter, Feminist Judgments as Teaching Resources, Oñati Socio-legal Series (2012)
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Lecture: A Latina Judge’s Voice (2009)
Justice Sotomayor, dissenting, Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2015)
Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007)
Justice Ginsburg, dissenting in Gonzales
Beverley Baines, Why Not Nine? (2016)
Tracy Thomas & TJ Boisseau, Law, History & Feminism, Introduction to Feminist Legal History (NYU Press 2012)
Monday, October 17, 2016
It's finally time for the US Feminist Judgments Conference this week, Thursday Oct. 20th and Friday Oct. 21st at Akron Law. I will be blogging and tweeting live from the conference here, and @ProfTracyThomas and @conlawcenter. Follow hashtag #FemJConf
The full conference program is here: Rewriting the Law, Writing the Future Program
Featured speakers include: Linda Berger, Bridget Crawford, Kathryn Stanchi, Berta Hernández-Truyol, Jamie Abrams, Shoshanna Ehrlich, Yvonne Lindgren, Margaret Johnson, Meghan Boone, Teri McMurtry-Chubb, Valorie Vojdik, Martha Chamallas, Danshera Cords, Jonathan Crock, Phyllis Goldfarb, Wilson Huhn, Shaakirrah Sanders, Hannah Brenner, Renee Knake, Meg Penrose, Anibal Rosario Lebron, Lisa Avalos, Nancy Cantalupo, Joanne Sweeny, Corey Yung, Karen Gross, Wendy Hess, Kimberly Holst, Susan Salmon, Elizabeth Kukura, Kalyani Robbins, Jessica Feinberg, Nicole Porter, Natalie Nanasi, Kim Holst, Emily Meyer, Navid Khazanei, Deborah Saybolt, Tara Willke, Laura Rosenbury, and Tracy Thomas.
A special panel of judges' will include Eve Belfance, City Attorney Akron, former Judge; Ohio Court of Appeals Karen Nelson Moore, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; Mary Margaret Rowlands, Judge, Summit County Court of Common Pleas; Elinore Marsh Stormer, Judge, Ohio Probate Court
The keynote speaker will be political scientist Sally Kenney speaking on "The Difference Gender Makes to Judging."
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Here's the full schedule: 2017 AALS Annual Meeting Schedule at a Glance
Not a big year for feminist inquiry per se. Panels of interest to law & gender include:
 Joint Program of Disability Law, Insurance Law, Law, Medicine and Health Care and Minority Groups, Co-Sponsored by Poverty Law and Women in Legal Education – Why Law Matters: Health and Social Justice
 Clinical Legal Education – Addressing Implicit Bias in Teaching
 Women In Legal Education, CoSponsored by Minority Groups, Balance in Legal Education – Cultivating Empathy
 Women in Legal Education Luncheon. Ticket price is $85 per person.
 Employment Discrimination Law, Co-Sponsored by Women in Legal Education – Responding to Fisher v. Texas
 Women in Legal Education – Speed Mentoring
 Education Law – Title IX and Transgender Student Rights: Looking Ahead
The Rethinking Gender Forums sponsored by the University of Akron Women's Studies program brings together colleagues from multiple disciplines to deepen the dialogue and understanding of gender issues.
RETHINKING GENDER FORUMS
Wednesday October 19, 2016
“Never Could Make Enough To Get Ahead: Southern Freedwomen's Work in Socio-historical Perspective”
Dr. Kathryn Feltey, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology
Wednesday November 16, 2016
“Going Back in Time: Whiteness, Maleness, and the Lure of Cinematic Nostalgia”
Dr. Kara Kvaran, Department of Women’s Studies
Wednesday February 15, 2017
“The Perils of Perfection: Why Girls Should Be Bold and Imperfect”
Dr. Robin Prichard, Associate Professor, School of Dance, Theatre, and Arts Administration
Wednesday March 22, 2017
“Poetry Lives! Two Akron Women Poets on Gender, the Body, and Surprise”
Dr. Mary Biddinger, Associate Professor, English Department, and Holly Brown, Author
Wednesday April 19, 2017
“College Students’ Caregiving Responsibilities and Its Impact on College Performance”
Dr. Pam Schulze, Professor and Director of the Center for Family Studies
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Kathy Stanchi, Why Are Feminist Judgments Necessary?
Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court, the new book I edited with Linda Berger and Bridget Crawford, imagines what 25 key Supreme Court cases on gender might have looked like had the Justices used feminist reasoning to decide the cases. In essence,Feminist Judgments imagines a Supreme Court diverse in multiple ways – not just race, gender, socioeconomic class and sexual orientation, but also philosophy, experience and perspective. The United States Supreme Court has been remarkably homogeneous in all these ways throughout history.
Would Feminist Judgments have been necessary as a visionary project had we had an ERA? It is unclear. Perhaps the passage of the ERA would have changed the composition of the Court – but that seems unlikely. And when I ponder what the ERA would have meant for American anti-discrimination law in the hands of an entirely conservative, white, economically privileged male Supreme Court, questions linger. After all, Geduldig’s holding was based on the famous distinction between women and “pregnant persons.” If it isn’t sex discrimination to treat “pregnant persons” unequally, would an ERA have really made a difference? And Roe and its progeny might have fared no better. Feminist advocates have been largely unsuccessful in convincing the Supreme Court that anti-abortion laws are an equal protection violation based on sex. If “pregnant persons” are a different category from women, aren’t “persons who get abortions” a similarly limited category?
One mission of Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court is to show that diversity – of sex, race, socioeconomic class, sexual orientation, among others – matters in our system of law. ERA or no ERA, the composition of the Court is critical, because the Justices are the last interpretive word on what the Constitutional text means. If the Justices saw the ERA as limited, or not covering pregnancy or abortion, all the grand words of equality would not have made a real difference in women’s lives. So, in some ways, Phyllis Schlafly made Feminist Judgments necessary, but we might have needed it anyway.
The related US Feminist Judgments Conference, Rewriting the Law, Writing the Future is October 20 & 21. Register here.
Monday, August 22, 2016
Call for Papers – Friday September 16th Deadline
The Feminist Legal Theory Collaborative Research Network
Seeks submissions for the Law and Society Association Annual Meeting
Mexico City, Mexico, at the Sheraton Maria Isabel, June 20 – 23, 2017
Dear friends and colleagues,
We invite you to participate in the panels sponsored by the Feminist Legal Theory Collaborative Research Network at the Law and Society Annual Meeting in 2017. The Feminist Legal Theory CRN seeks to bring together law and society scholars across a range of fields who are interested in feminist legal theory. Information about the Law and Society meeting is available at http://www.lawandsociety.org.
This year’s meeting is unique in that it brings us to the Global South, and invites us to explore the theme Walls, Borders, and Bridges: Law and Society in an Inter-Connected World. We are especially interested in proposals that explore the application of feminist legal theory to this theme, broadly construed. This might include papers that explore feminist legal theory in comparative or transnational contexts, as well as in relation to the impacts of globalism and other intersections within particular locations, relationships, institutions, and identities. We are also interested in papers that will permit us to collaborate with other CRNs, such as the Critical Research on Race and the Law CRN, and welcome multidisciplinary proposals.
Our goal is to stimulate focused discussion of papers on which scholars are currently working. Thus, while you may submit papers that are closer to publication, we are particularly eager to receive proposals for works-in-progress that are at an earlier stage and will benefit from the discussion that the panels will provide.
The Planning Committee will assign individual papers to panels based on subject. Panels will use the LSA format, which requires four papers. We will also assign a chair, and one or two commentators/discussants for each panel, to provide feedback on the papers and promote discussion. For panels with two commentators/discussants, one may be asked to also chair.
As a condition of participating as a panelist, you must also agree to serve as a chair and/or commentator/discussant for another panel or participant. We will of course take into account expertise and topic preferences to the degree possible.
The duties of chairs are to organize the panel logistically; including registering it online with the LSA, and moderating the panel. Chairs will develop a 100-250 word description for the session and submit the session proposal to LSA before their anticipated deadline of October 19. This will ensure that each panelist can submit their proposal, using the panel number assigned.
The duties of commentator/discussants are to read the papers assigned to them and to prepare a short commentary about the papers that discusses them individually and (to the extent relevant) collectively, identifying ways that they relate to one another.
If you would like to present a paper as part of a CRN panel, please email:
- An 1000 word abstract or summary,
- Your name and a title, and
- A list of your areas of interest and expertise within feminist legal theory
to the CRN Planning Committee at email@example.com. (Please do not send submissions to individual committee members.)
Note that LSA is imposing a requirement that your summary be at least 1,000 words long. Although a shorter summary will suffice for our purposes, you will be required to upload a 1,000 word summary in advance of LSA’s anticipated deadline of October 19. If you are already planning a LSA session with at least four panelists (and papers) that you would like to see included in the Feminist Legal Theory CRN, please let the Committee know.
In addition to these panels, we may try to use some of the other formats that the LSA provides: the “author meets readers” format, salon, or roundtable discussion. If you have an idea that you think would work well in one of these formats, please let us know. Please note that for roundtables, organizers are now required to provide a 500-word summary of the topic and the contributions they expect the proposed participants to make. Please also note that LSA rules limit you to participating only once as a paper panelist or roundtable participant.
Please submit all proposals by Friday, September 16 to the email provided above. This will permit us to organize panels and submit them prior to the LSA’s anticipated deadline of October 19. In the past, we have accommodated as many panelists as possible, but have been unable to accept all proposals. If we are unable to accept your proposal for the CRN, we will notify you by early October so that you can submit an independent proposal to LSA.
We hope you’ll join us in Mexico City to share and discuss the scholarship in which we are all engaged and connect with others doing work on feminist legal theory.
2017 LSA Feminist Legal Theory CRN Planning Committee
Aziza Ahmed (co-chair)
Elizabeth MacDowell (co-chair)
Cyra Akila Choudhury
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Here is the program with the terrific line up of presenters and talks at the upcoming Fall conference, The US Feminist Judgments Project: Rewriting Law, Writing the Future.
The two-day conference features over 50 law professors and advocates speaking on a wide range of topics including broadly gender and judging, law and gender, and the future of feminist theory. Take a look!
The conference will take place at the University of Akron School of Law, October 20 & 21, 2016. Register here! (no conference fees).
Monday, May 2, 2016
Heather Roberts (Australian Natl) & Laura Sweeney (NSW Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby), Review Essay: Why (Re)Write Judgements?, 37 Sydney L.Rev. 457 (2015)
Australian Feminist Judgments is a collection of fictional judgments for real Australian cases that have been rewritten by Australian scholars from the perspective of a feminist judge. Each judgment is introduced by a commentary, written by a different scholar, explaining the legal and historical context of the original decision and the choices made by the feminist judge. This review essay locates the collection within more general debates surrounding judgment writing, particularly leading Australian extra-judicial commentary on how and why judgments are written. Against this larger plane, we consider a number of the key issues raised by the collection about judgment writing, including the significance of recounting the facts of a case, the uses of formalist judicial method and the capacity of judgments to effect change. Drawing on a number of examples from the collection, this review essay contends that Australian Feminist Judgments makes a valuable contribution not only to contemporary feminist debates, but also to issues going to the heart of judicial practices and judgment.
The US Feminist Judgments rewriting projects is here.
A fall conference on rewriting judgments, The US Feminist Judgments Project: Rewriting the Law, Writing the Future is planned for October 20 & 21.
Saturday, April 23, 2016
Northeastern, Workshop on Reproductive and Sexual Justice
A Vulnerability and the Human Condition Workshop on Reproductive and Sexual Justice
April 29 - 30, 2016
Northeastern University School of Law, Dockser Hall
This workshop will seek to reflect upon the issues of reproductive rights, sexual health, and sexual violence through the lens of vulnerability as a way to advance discussion on related issues of social justice.
Aziza Ahmed, Associate Professor of Law, Northeastern University School of Law
Stu Marvel, Visiting Scholar, College of Social Sciences and Humanities, Northeastern University
Martha Fineman, Robert W. Woodruff Professor of Law, Emory Law
Questions? Contact Rachel Ezrol, firstname.lastname@example.org
Friday, April 29, 2016
|4:00 - 6:00 PM||
Beyond Rights? Locating Discourses of Reproductive Justice and Vulnerability
|6:30 - 8:00 PM||
Saturday, April 30, 2016
|8:30 - 9:00 AM||
|9:00 - 11:30 AM||
Tracking Contestation Around the Regulation of Intimacy
|11:30 am - 12:30 pm||
|12:30 - 2:30 pm||
Pregnancy and Mothering Through a Vulnerability Lens
|2:45 - 4:45 pm||
Resilient Frames: Injury, Victimhood and Criminalization
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
Location: Massachusetts Historical Society
Katherine Marino, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
The Origins of “Women’s Rights are Human Rights”: Pan-American Feminism and the 1945 United Nation Charter
Comment: Kirsten Weld, Harvard University
In June, 1945, at the conference in San Francisco that created the United Nations, a group of Latin American feminists pushed “women’s rights” into the category of international human rights in the founding documents of the UN and proposed what became the UN Commission on the Status of Women. The Brazilian delegate and feminist Bertha Lutz called their work a “Latin American contribution to the constitution of the world.” This paper examines what “women’s rights” and “human rights” meant to these Latin American activists and how a movement of transnational, Pan-American feminism shaped their ideas and activism. It argues that the notion that “women’s rights are human rights,” often assumed to be a product of U.S./Western European liberal democratic and feminist thought, was in fact forged through transnational collaboration in a context of fraught U.S./Latin American relations.
RSVP so we know how many will attend. To respond, email email@example.com or phone 617-646-0568.
As usual, there will be four programs in this series, two each at the Schlesinger Library and the Massachusetts Historical Society. The complete schedule is available at http://www.masshist.org/2012/calendar/seminars/women-and-gender
Each seminar consists of a discussion of a pre-circulated paper provided to our subscribers. (Papers will be available at the event for those who choose not to subscribe.) Afterwards the host institution will provide a light buffet supper.
We look forward to seeing you at the program!
Thursday, March 3, 2016
CALL FOR PAPERS
SECOND WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES MEETS GENDER, RACE AND CLASS CONFERENCE
OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW SEPTEMBER 10, 2016
Oklahoma City University School of Law in is proud to announce that it will host the second one-day conference on the intersection of inheritance law, broadly defined, with gender, race and class, on September 10, 2016. The Keynote Speaker will be Thomas P. Gallanis, Professor of Law and History at the University of Iowa, College of Law; Conference Commentator will be Professor William LaPiana, Professor of Law at New York Law School.
This conference proceeds from the assumption that, as Lawrence Friedman has said, inheritance is the DNA of society: it determines which social formations and hierarchies will be replicated from generation to generation and which will change. In that vein, we seek proposals for papers which examine all aspects of this theme, both within the United States and abroad, within common law, civil law, and other legal traditions. Possible topics might include: the effect on inheritance of the Obergefell ruling, changing families and existing law, taxation, the role of charitable giving in undermining or replicating social stratification, varying patterns of bequests and inheritance among different ethnic communities, the class and gender implications of the Uniform Probate Code, among others.
We will also hold a Junior Scholars session at the conference, and encourage young faculty to submit works-in-progress for feedback.
This papers from this conference, along with presentations from the previous conference on the same topic in 2014, will be submitted to publishers as a book proposal.
Please submit a 300 word abstract for individual papers and 500-word panel proposals to firstname.lastname@example.org by July 1st. Presenters will be notified by mid-July.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Panels related to law and gender at the upcoming Law & Society Annual Meeting:
L&S Preliminary Program List of Events (search Events by title below for panelists and further information)
[or try List of Events/Sorted by Gender]
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
Kathryn Stanchi, Linda Berger, Bridget Crawford, Introduction: US Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the US Supreme Court (forthcoming Cambridge Press 2016)
Abstract:What would United States Supreme Court opinions look like if key decisions on gender issues were written with a feminist perspective? To begin to answer this question, we brought together a group of scholars and lawyers to rewrite, using feminist reasoning, the most significant U.S. Supreme Court cases on gender from the 1800s to the present day. While feminist legal theory has developed and even thrived within universities, and feminist activists and lawyers are responsible for major changes in the law, feminist reasoning has had a less clear impact on judicial decision-making. Doctrines of stare decisis and judicial language of neutrality can operate to obscure structural bias in the law, making it difficult to see what feminism could bring to judicial reasoning.
The twenty-five opinions in this volume demonstrate that judges with feminist viewpoints could have changed the course of the law. The rewritten decisions show that previously accepted judicial outcomes were not necessary or inevitable and demonstrate that feminist reasoning increases the judicial capacity for justice, not only for women but for many other oppressed groups. The remarkable differences evident in the rewritten opinions also open a path for a long overdue discussion of the real impact that judicial diversity has on law and of the influence that perspective has in judging.
Chapter 1Introduction to the U.S. Feminist Judgments Project Kathryn M. Stanchi, Linda L. Berger, and Bridget J. CrawfordChapter 2 Talking Back: From Feminist History and Theory to Feminist Legal Methods and Judgments Berta Esperanza Hernández-TruyolChapter 3. Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1873)Commentary: Kimberly HolstJudgment: Phyllis GoldfarbChapter 4. Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908)Commentary: Andrea DoneffJudgment: Pamela Laufer-UkelesChapter 5. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)Commentary: Cynthia Hawkins DeBoseJudgment: Laura RosenburyChapter 6. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)Commentary: Inga N. LaurentJudgment: Teri McMurtry-ChubbChapter 7. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972)Commentary: Nancy D. PolikoffJudgment: Karen Syma CzapanskiyChapter 8. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)Commentary: Rachel RebouchéJudgment: Kimberly M. MutchersonChapter 9. Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)Commentary: Iselin M. GambertJudgment: Dara E. PurvisChapter 10. Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484 (1974)Commentary: Maya ManianJudgment: Lucinda M. FinleyChapter 11. Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977)Commentary: Brenda V. SmithJudgment: Maria L. OntiverosChapter 12. City of Los Angeles Department Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702 (1978)Commentary: Cassandra Jones HavardJudgment: Tracy A. ThomasChapter 13. Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980)Commentary: Mary ZieglerJudgment: Leslie C. GriffinChapter 14. Michael M. v. Superior Court, 450 U.S. 464 (1981)Commentary: Margo KaplanJudgment: Cynthia GodsoeChapter 15. Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981)Commentary: Jamie R. AbramsJudgment: David S. CohenChapter 16. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986)Commentary: Kristen Konrad TiscioneJudgment: Angela Onwuachi-WilligChapter 17. Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S. 616 (1987)Commentary: Deborah GordonJudgment: Deborah L. RhodeChapter 18. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989)Commentary: Dale Margolin CeckaJudgment: Martha ChamallasChapter 19. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)Commentary: Macarena SáezJudgment: Lisa R. PruittChapter 20. United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996)Commentary: Christine M. VenterJudgment: Valorie K. VojdikChapter 21. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998)Commentary: Margaret E. JohnsonJudgment: Ann C. McGinleyChapter 22. Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274 (1998)Commentary: Michelle S. SimonJudgment: Ann BartowChapter 23. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000)Commentary: Shaakirrah R. SandersJudgment: Aníbal Rosario LebrónChapter 24. Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001)Commentary: Sandra S. ParkJudgment: Ilene DurstChapter 25. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)Commentary: Kris McDaniel-MiccioJudgment: Ruthann RobsonChapter 26. Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)Commentary: Patricia A. BroussardJudgment: Maria Isabel MedinaChapter 27. Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015)Commentary: Erez AloniJudgment: Carlos A. Ball
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
Friday, December 18, 2015
From the AALS Section on Women in Legal Education:
Women and the Law Annual Meeting Schedule
Wednesday, January 6th, 5:30-6:30 pm
Section on Women in Legal Education Business Meeting
Drinks and hor d’oeuvres will be provided courtesy of St. Thomas University School of Law (Miami) and University of Toledo College of Law
Thursday, January 7th, 1:30-3:15 pm
"Female Perspectives on Commercial and Consumer Law"
Co-sponsored panel with the Section on Commercial and Related Consumer Law
Friday, January 8th, 10:30 am-12:15 pm
"The Dodd-Frank Act’s Fifth Anniversary: Diversity and Inclusion in the Leadership of the Financial Services Sector"
Co-sponsored panel with the Sections on Minority Groups and Employment Discrimination
Friday, January 8th, 1:30-3:15 pm
“Sex and Death: Gender and Sexuality Matters in Trusts and Estates”
Trusts and Estates and Women in Legal Education Joint Program
Saturday, January 9th, 10:30 am-12:15 pm
"The Regulation of Appearance in the Workplace and the Meaning of Discrimination"
Co-sponsored panel with the Sections on Minority Groups, Employment Discrimination, and Islamic Law
Saturday, January 9th, 12:15-1:30 pm
Section on Women in Legal Education Luncheon
Professor Marina Angel will be honored as the Ruth Bader Ginsburg Lifetime Achievement Award Recipient
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
November 12 was the bicentennial of the birth of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, one of America’s most prominent and extraordinary women’s right leaders. The event passed largely un-noticed. We missed a chance to pause and reflect on her leadership and also on the issues she wrestled with, some of which are still with us.
Stanton deserves more recognition. She was, of course, the main organizer of the famous Seneca Falls women’s rights convention in 1848, which issued a ringing declaration demanding the right to vote. But there are several other reasons for studying her career.
We didn't miss it at the Con Law Colloquium at Akron Law. The entire colloquium featured Stanton scholars of law and history delving into Stanton's contributions to gender equality and constitutional thinking of the vote, political economy, marriage, the family, and religious liberty.
Here's my prior blog post and all the details from the program.
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
I had the fortune to participate in The Center for Constitutional Law at Akron's Colloquium last week, The Origins of Gender Equality. The Colloquium scheduled for the 200th Anniversary of Elizabeth Cady Stanton's birth celebrated Stanton's vast intellectual and political contributions to the law.
The New York Times Book Review often asks authors, if you could have dinner with any writers, who would it be? Well the participants at the colloquium were my list of ideal dinner guests. These scholars to me represented the best of the work on Stanton in law and history, characterized by original thinking, impeccable and thorough research, and ideas found nowhere elsewhere in the literature. It was a privilege to engage in conversation with these women and deepen our understanding of the legacy of women's rights still so unknown and unappreciated.
The papers from the Gender Equality Colloquium will be published in the spring in ConLawNOW.
Tracy Thomas, Introduction: The Origins of Gender Equality in the Life and Work of Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Lisa Tetrault (history, Carneige Mellon): On the Meaning of the Vote
Felice Batlan (law, Chicago-Kent): Manhood Suffrage at the New York Constitutional Convention of 1867
Lisa Hogan (women's studies, Penn State): Unveiling Gendered Notions of Marriage and Women's Sexuality
Kathi Kern (history, Kentucky): Religious Liberty Claims: From Kim Davis to Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Tuesday, November 3, 2015
I had the pleasure of hearing Jonathan Witmer-Rich (Cleveland State) speak last Friday at the NE Ohio Faculty Colloquium, a twice-annual lunch with the faculties of Akron, Case, and Cleveland State.
He previewed his thesis that the new legislative movement of "Yes Means Yes" doesn't actually change the existing legal standard of consent, for good or for bad. He wove in the recent discussion draft of recommended changes to the Model Penal Code.
You can hear more on this from Jonathan at AALS on January 9, 2016 on Panel 1 of the Symposium on Violence Against Women.
Thursday, October 22, 2015
More on the forthcoming book from the U.S. Feminist Judgments Project
FYI - the Conference on the project Rewriting the Law. Writing the Future. is next year, October 20 & 21, 2016 at the Center for Constitutional Law following the release of the book.
"Feminist Judgments" puts a new spin on famous Supreme Court cases.
In 2012, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made headlines by saying she hoped to see an all-female Supreme Court one day. "When I'm sometimes asked when there will be enough [women justices] and I say, 'When there are nine,' people are shocked," she explained during a legal conference in Colorado. Nobody "ever raised a question" when nine men dominated the court, added the now-82-year-old, one of three women on the bench today.
If Ginsburg got her wish, what might that mean for America? And what if women had taken a majority of seats on the highest court a long time ago? That's a question raised by dozens of feminist law scholars and lawyers across the United States who are putting together a new book, Feminist Judgments, in which they re-examine 24 of the most significant Supreme Court cases related to gender—dating from the 1800s to the present day—and rewrite the court's final decisions as if they had been the judges.
More than 100 people applied to help write the book, which will be published sometime next spring, according to Kathryn Stanchi, a law professor at Temple University and one of three editors overseeing the project. All selected applicants agreed to follow an important rule: They could only base their revision on the legal precedent that bound the Supreme Court back when the case was first decided.