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, email@example.com
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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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 email@example.com 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.
Saturday, October 17, 2015
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
From Professor Marina Angel (Temple):
The 23rd Annual CLE Conference for Feminist Law Professors will take place at Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law in Philadelphia on Saturday, November 21, 2015. If you are interested in presenting, please contact Professor Angel at Marina.Angel@Temple.edu.
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Call for Papers
Friday September 18th Deadline
Feminist Legal Theory Collaborative Research Network
at the Law and Society Association Annual Meeting
New Orleans, June 2-5, 2016
Dear friends and colleagues,
We write to invite you to participate in panels sponsored by the Feminist Legal Theory Collaborative Research Network at the Law and Society Annual Meeting in 2016.
Information about the Law and Society meeting (including registration and hotel information) is at: Law and Society Annual Meeting
Within Law & Society, the Feminist Legal Theory CRN seeks to bring together scholars across a range of fields who are interested in feminist legal theory. There is no pre-set theme to which papers must conform. We would be especially happy to see proposals that fit in with the LSA conference theme, which is belonging, place, and visions of law and social change. We welcome proposals that would permit us to collaborate with other CRNs, such as the Critical Research on Race and the Law CRN or the Gender, Sexuality and the Law CRN. Also, because the LSA meeting attracts scholars from other disciplines, we welcome multidisciplinary proposals. Our goal is to stimulate focused discussion of papers on which scholars are currently working. Thus, while proposals may reference work that is well on the way to publication, we are particularly eager to solicit proposals for works-in-progress that are at an earlier stage and will benefit from the discussion that the panels will provide.
A committee of the CRN will assign individual papers to panels based on subject. Our panels will use the LSA format, which requires four papers, but we will continue our custom of assigning a chair for the panel and a commentator for each individual paper. As a condition of participating as a panelist, you must also agree to serve as a chair or commentator for another panel or participant. We will of course take into account your scheduling and topic preferences to the degree possible. The duties of a chair are to organize the panel logistically, including registering it online with the LSA, and moderating the panel. The chair will develop a 100-250 word description for the session and submit the session proposal to LSA before their upcoming deadline on October 15, so that each panelist can submit his or her proposal, using the panel number assigned. Chairs will also be responsible for assigning commentators but may wait to do so until panels have been scheduled later this winter. The duties of a commentator are to read one paper and provide verbal comments as well as brief written (email is fine) comments.
If you would like to present a paper as part of a CRN panel, please email an abstract or summary, along with your name and a title, to Jessica Clarke at firstname.lastname@example.org. There is no need to upload the document to the TWEN site this year. Note that LSA is imposing a new 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 deadline on October 15. 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 Jessica 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 the 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 18. This will permit us to organize panels and submit them prior to the LSA’s deadline on October 15. In the past, we have attempted to accommodate 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 Octoberso that you can submit an independent proposal to LSA.
We hope you’ll join us in New Orleans to discuss the scholarship in which we are all engaged and connect with others doing work on feminism and gender.
LSA Planning Committee
Thursday, August 13, 2015
Donna Coker (Miami), Leigh Goodmark (Maryland), Marcia Olivo, CONVERGE! Reimagining the Movement to End Gender Violence, 5 U. Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review 249 (2015)
Abstract:This introduction to the CONVERGE! Symposium by conference co-chairs Donna Coker, Leigh Goodmark, & Marcia Olivo, describes the aspirations of conference organizers, reflects on the accomplishments of the conference, and looks ahead to ongoing work.
CONVERGE! Reimagining the Movement to End Gender Violence brought together more than 200 academics, activists, survivors, students, and service providers convened in Miami. People came in response to a call to reimagine the work to end gender violence: "We seek to refocus United States priorities in funding, activism, legal responses, and social services in ways that better address the intersecting inequalities that create and maintain gender violence."
The conference highlighted the connections between what is often described as “gender violence” or “violence against women” — interpersonal violence, particularly intimate partner violence and sexual assault — and the structural inequalities of colonization, sexism, heterosexism, racism, anti-immigrant bias, and economic injustice. Building on the groundbreaking work of INCITE!, conference speakers expanded the traditional interpersonal violence frame to encompass state violence directed at women — violence that is embodied in racist, homophobic, classist, and anti-immigrant policies and practices, whether in prisons, on the streets, at the borders, in the workplace, or in homes.
CONVERGE! was bilingual, with a strong voice of monolingual Spanish speakers, undocumented women survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault, and domestic workers.
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
The Chronicle, Ten Tips for Tweeting at Conferences
It’s no surprise that we here at ProfHacker like Twitter. We’ve covered how to start tweeting (and why you might want to) and practical advice for teaching with Twitter. I’ve found Twitter to be a tremendous boon to developing my professional networks and helping me stay on top of what’s happening in my fields of scholarship. But there’s one place where where Twitter perhaps ends up being more valuable for me than other place: at conferences.
Tweeting at conferences is a great way to share what you’re learning in a session with your followers and the wider world. It’s also a great way to be in two places at once, as you can read tweets from other sessions that you weren’t able to attend. You can read those tweets as they come in or—if you’d rather not fracture your attention—read them after the fact using a Twitter search. I personally find tweeting during conference sessions to be a great way for me to take notes; it helps me pay closer attention to what someone is saying than if I were simply working with pen and paper. It can even turn into something of a competition.
Saturday, May 16, 2015
The Feminist Legal Theory CRN group at the upcoming Law & Society is reading Roxane Gay's, Bad Feminist (http://www.roxanegay.com/bad-feminist/).
I just finished reading the book myself. I had read excerpts and reviews, but not the book until now. Really great. She's a professor, a writer, and a "bad" feminist - defined as a real, human, imperfect person who nevertheless believes in core principles of gender equality and the identification of such as "feminist." Refreshing, irreverent. Just keeping it real.
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Book Discussion and Informal Gathering
(Belltown Pub, 2322 1st Avenue)
8:15 AM –
Separate Spheres? Church, State, Market, and Family
Chair: Jessica Clarke, Associate Professor, Minnesota
1. Elizabeth Sepper, Associate Professor, Washington University Law, The Family Corporation
2. Julia L. Ernst, Assistant Professor, University of North Dakota School of Law, Religious Law and Women’s Human Rights: Reflections upon the African Human Rights System
3. Kara Loewentheil, Research Fellow, Columbia Law School & Director, Public Rights / Private Conscience Project, Columbia Law School, Satanists, Scott Walker, & Contraception: Hobby Lobby’s Implications For State Law
4. Wendy A. Bach, Associate Professor, University of Tennessee College of Law, The Hyperregulatory State and the Submerged State: Exploring Structural Inequalities in U.S. Social Policy
10:15 PM –
Author Meets Readers: Banking on the Body: The Market in Blood, Milk and Sperm in Modern America
12:45 PM –
Children’s Rights and Best Interests
Chair: Maya Manian, Professor, USF
1. Leslie J. Harris, Professor, Oregon, Teens’ Health Care Decisions: Competence Meets Policy
2. Kim Hai Pearson, Assistant Professor, Gonzaga, and Addie C. Rolnick, Associate Professor, UNLV Law, Gender, Race, and Ideal Parenthood in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
3. Bela August Walker, Associate Professor, Roger Williams, Parental Status from Property Rights to Fundamental Rights
4. Seema Mohapatra, Associate Professor of Law, Barry, Treating Cross Border Surrogacy Like Intercountry Adoption: A Best Interests
2:45 PM –
Chair: Cynthia Godsoe, Assistant Professor, Brooklyn Law School
1. Janet Halley, Harvard Law School
2. Prabha Kotiswaran, King’s College London
3. Rachel Rebouche, Temple University School of Law
4. Hila Shamir, Tel-Aviv University Faculty of Law
2:45 PM –
Paying the Price for Untraditional Parenthood
Chair: Dara Purvis, Assistant Professor, Penn State
1. Michael Boucai, Associate Professor, SUNY Buffalo Law, Is Assisted Procreation an LGBT Right?
2. Melanie B. Jacobs, Professor of Law, Michigan State University, Procreative Liberty Can Be Yours – If the Price is Right: Comparing the Effects of Wealth Inequality in American and Chinese Family Formation
3. Radhika Rao, Professor, UC Hastings,Selective Reduction: “A Soft Cover for Hard Choices”
4. Jody Lyneé Madeira, Professor, Indiana Maurer Law, Reconceiving Informed Consent
5. Qian Liu, PhD student, University of Victoria, Institutionalized Discrimination against Unwed Mothers’ Reproductive Rights in China
CRN dinner and business meeting (Osteria La Spiga, 1429 12th Ave)
7:30 AM –
New Forms of Intimate Ordering
Chair: Julie Shapiro, Professor, Seattle
1. Jessica Feinberg, Assistant Professor, Mercer Law, Gradual Marriage
2. Ayelet Blecher-Prigat, Faculty of Law, Bar-Ilan, From Partners To Joint Parents: The Case Of Unplanned Joint Parenthood
3. Merle H. Weiner, Professor, Oregon, Would Women Benefit from a Parent-Partner Status?
4. Allison Anna Tait, Assistant Professor, Richmond, Between Marital Privilege and Economic Partnership
9:30 AM –
AMR Salon: Vicarious Kinks: SM in the Socio-Legal
9:30 AM –
Lies, Coercion, and Violence Among Intimates
Chair: Courtney Joslin, Professor, UC Davis School of Law
1. Jill Elaine Hasday, Professor, Minnesota, Intimate Lies: How Does and How Should the Law Regulate Deception Between Spouses, Lovers, Dates, Parents, Children, Siblings, and More
2. Susan Ayres, Professor Texas A&M Law, Paternity Fraud: Regulation of Women’s Sexuality and Family Relationships
3. Tugce Ellialti, Ph.D Candidate, Sociology, U. Penn, “Truth-Seeking” Through Forensic Reports: Female Survivors and the Medico-Legal Discourse on Sexual Violence in Turkey
11:30 AM –
Regulating Sex; Designating Victims and Offenders
Chair: Aziza Ahmed, Associate Professor, Northeastern University School of Law
1. Ummni Khan, Associate Professor, Carleton University, Ambivalent Intersections: The Queer Heterosexuality of A Sex Trade Client
2. Jessica Clarke, Associate Professor, Minnesota, Sexual Exceptionalism
3. Cynthia Godsoe, Assistant Professor, Brooklyn, Victims and Offenders
4. Zeynep Kıvılcım, Out-Of-Camp Syrian Women And LGBTI Refugees: Exploring The Gendered Nature Of Turkey’s New Immigration Law
1:30 PM –
Bodies, The Sensorium And Visuality
Chair: Ummni Khan, Associate Professor, Carleton University
1. Dawn Moore, Professor of Law, Carleton University, and Rashmee Singh, Assistant Professor of Sociology and Legal Studies, University of Waterloo, Seeing Crime: Injuries, Images and Victims of Domestic Violence
2. Sameena Mulla, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, and Heather Hlavka, Narrating Victimized and Victimizing Bodies: The Emergence of Rape in Criminal Court Testimony
3. Samantha D. Gottlieb, Regulating HPV vaccine and acceptable bodies
3:30 PM –
Legal Responses to Domestic Violence
Chair: Leslie J. Harris, Professor, Oregon School of Law
1. Joan Meier, Professor of Clinical Law, George Washington University Law School, Child Custody Outcomes In Cases Involving Parental Alienation And Abuse Allegations
2. Caroline Forell, Professor, Oregon Law School, Gender Equality And Homicides At Home
3. Jane K. Stoever, Assistant Clinical Professor, UC Irvine School of Law, Mirandizing Family Justice Centers
4. Carolyn B. Ramsey, Professor of Law, Colorado Law School, The Stereotyped Offender: Domestic Violence and the Failure of Intervention
5:30 PM –
Evolving Ideas of Kinship
Chair: Rachel Rebouché, Associate Professor, Temple University Beasley School of Law
1. Theresa Glennon, Professor, Temple University Beasley School of Law, Becoming Family: Evaluating the Process of Defining Family Relationships at Birth
2. Courtney Joslin, Professor, UC Davis School of Law, Marriage Equality and Nonmarital Families
3. Kimberly Mutcherson, Professor, Rutgers School of Law-Camden, Kinship, Law, and Assisted Reproduction
4. Dara Purvis, Assistant Professor, Penn State Dickinson School of Law, A World of No Genetic Parentage
5:30 PM –
Institutional Responses to Gendered Violence: Employers, Universities, and the Military
Chair: Carolyn Ramsey, Professor of Law, Colorado Law School
Discussant: Ann C. McGinley, Professor, UNLV,Through a Different Lens: Using Masculinities Research to Interpret Title VII
1. Jamie Abrams, Assistant Professor, University of Louisville, Combating The Persistence Of Gendered Violence In The Military
2. Nancy Chi Cantalupo, Research Fellow, Georgetown Law School, “Inquisitorialism” and Campus Gender-Based Violence
3. Sarah Swan, JSD Candidate, Columbia Law School, Bystander Interventions
8:15 AM –
Institutional Accountability for Gender Violence
Chair: Julie Goldscheid, Professor of Law, CUNY
1. Aziza Ahmed
2. Carrie Bettinger-Lopez
3. Donna Coker
4. Adele Morrison
5. Deborah Weissman