Monday, September 15, 2014
Caitlin Borgmann, CUNY Law, has uploaded on SSRN "Abortion Exceptionalism and Undue Burden Preemption." The abstract:
This Article discusses the tendency of some lower federal courts to interpret the undue burden standard of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey as essentially occupying the field of potential constitutional claims whenever abortion is involved. Thus, where litigants have alleged constitutional claims other than, or in addition to, undue burden violations, courts have either changed how they normally analyze these constitutional claims or they have even completely foreclosed the application of other doctrines on the grounds that the undue burden standard subsumes or displaces these claims. This Article illustrates this phenomenon in the context of three types of non-undue-burden claims that have been asserted against some abortion restrictions: bodily integrity, equal protection, and the right against compelled speech. Undue burden preemption, I argue, flies in the face of the Court’s recognition that “[c]ertain wrongs...can implicate more than one of the Constitution’s commands.” Where multiple constitutional violations are alleged, the Court’s normal approach is to examine each constitutional provision in turn. There is one well-established exception to this general rule, the “Graham doctrine.” This doctrine provides that, when a litigant asserts a substantive due process claim, and where the Court finds that another more specific constitutional provision applies, the Court analyzes the claim under the more specific provision to the exclusion of substantive due process. This Article argues that undue burden preemption, far from being justified by the Graham doctrine, turns that doctrine on its head.
Friday, September 12, 2014
David Cruz at USC Law has uploaded "Baker v. Nelson: Flotsam in the Tidal Wave of Windsor's Wake" on SSRN. The abstract reads:
Part I of this Article sketches the virtually unbroken string of pro-marriage decisions in the lower federal and state courts since the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor (2013) to give a sense of the size and magnitude of this “tidal wave” of precedent. Next, Part II briefly explores some of the reasons that might help account for the flood of litigation and overwhelmingly positive outcomes. Part III tentatively suggests one way this flow of decisions in favor of marriage equality might influence the Supreme Court when it returns to the issue. It then at some length shows one particular aspect of Windsor’s wake: the way it has helped lower federal courts unanimously and properly conclude that doctrinal developments after the Supreme Court summarily rejected a same-sex couple’s constitutional claims to a right to marry in Baker v. Nelson (1972) have rendered that decision no longer dispositive. Although Baker would in no event prevent the Supreme Court itself from revisiting the constitutional issues, the ability to declare Baker doctrinally undermined has positive repercussions for the social equality and lived reality of same-sex couples across the country in the mean time. Finally, Part IV of the Article addresses some of the ways in which United States v. Windsor itself developed constitutional doctrine in ways that advance the cause of constitutional justice and same-sex couples’ rights to equal protection and to marry.
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
David Orentlicher, Indiana University, has uploaded to SSRN Abortion and Compelled Physician Speech. The abstract reads:
As states increasingly impose informed consent mandates on abortion providers, the required disclosures bring two well-established legal doctrines into conflict — the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and the physician’s duty to obtain informed consent. On one hand, the First Amendment precludes the government from forcing individuals to voice the government’s views. On the other hand, legislatures and courts can insist that physicians properly explain to patients about their medical conditions and potential treatments so patients can make informed decisions about their health care. When taking care of patients, doctors assume a duty to speak, as well as a duty to speak responsibly.
Ordinarily, the doctrines of free speech and informed consent coexist without much difficulty. But as states have expanded the kinds of information that abortion providers must disclose to pregnant women, First Amendment concerns have become increasingly salient. In this article, I will use several examples of speech mandates for abortion and other health care services to identify principles for distinguishing between legitimate regulation of the informed consent process and illegitimate interference with the freedom of speech.
First, speech mandates should be permissible when they provide material information to patients about their health care decisions. If the state is trying to ensure that patients are fully informed, the mandates should be allowed. As a corollary, the information must be truthful and not be misleading. The goal is to inform not to misinform. Second, speech mandates that pertain to moral considerations should not be permitted. Rather than informing the patient’s decision, these mandates force the physician or other health professional to espouse the state’s ideology.
Courts and legal scholars have proposed other ways to distinguish permissible from impermissible mandates (e.g., whether the government takes sides, manipulates emotions, or uses graphic images). However, these additional distinctions raise their own concerns and should not be needed. If courts strictly apply the requirements that compelled speech pertain to medical facts about abortion and its alternatives rather than abortion ideology and that the compelled speech be truthful and not misleading, then the interests of pregnant women and their physicians should be protected.
Jason Potter Burda, UMass School of Law, has uploaded to the SSRN When Condoms Fail. The abstract reads:
Given the alarming upward trend in HIV infection rates and the downward trend in condom usage, we need a new approach to HIV prevention in the United States. One such approach, HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (commonly known in the media as “PrEP”) has the potential to significantly reduce HIV incidence. The FDA recently approved a daily dose of Truvada® — an antiretroviral drug that suppresses the virus in HIV-positive individuals — for use by certain HIV-negative individuals to prevent infection. Despite an effectiveness of up to 92 percent and significant regulatory momentum, this pharmacological prevention modality has proven difficult to implement.
In this article, I address the social, legal, and policy challenges that will shape future implementation of this game-changing HIV prevention modality. I develop a framework for understanding these challenges by dividing them into two dimensions: acceptability and accessibility. I argue that self-imposed, individual, and institutional stigma affects PrEP acceptability among high-risk groups, and among healthcare providers. In addition, I speculate that utilization management for PrEP is likely to increase as a result of PrEP rollout, and that PrEP is vulnerable to benefit denials based on medical necessity exclusions.
One solution to overcoming these challenges is mandating benefits for, and eliminating accessibility hurdles to, PrEP under the Affordable Care Act’s Preventive Services and Essential Health Benefits provisions, as well as mandating PrEP coverage through state action. Health content regulation, although controversial particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, will be necessary both to ensure that PrEP treatment reaches the populations most at risk of spreading the virus and to overcome antiquated assumptions about HIV prevention.
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Maya Manian has uploaded on SSRN "The Consequences of Abortion Restrictions for Women's Healthcare," 75 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1317 (2014). The abstract reads:
This Essay challenges the false assumption that abortion care can be segregated from women’s medical care and targeted for special restrictions without any effects on women’s health more broadly. As a matter of medical reality, abortion cannot be isolated from the continuum of women’s healthcare. Yet policymakers and the public have failed to understand the interconnectedness of abortion with other aspects of women’s medical care. In fact, existing abortion restrictions harm women’s health even for women not actively seeking abortion care, but these impacts remain obscured. For example, antiabortion laws and policies have spillover effects on miscarriage management, prenatal care, and the treatment of ectopic pregnancies. Focusing the public’s attention on the broader effects of abortion restrictions on women’s health could help make visible the links between abortion and healthcare. Furthermore, educating the public about the full healthcare consequences of abortion restrictions could be one key means to preserving access to abortion care. Repositioning the law to recognize abortion care as an integral part of the continuum of women’s medical needs is critical to protecting women’s health.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Kim Shayo Buchanan has uploaded "When Is HIV a Crime?" on SSRN. The abstract reads:
HIV criminalization is difficult to justify on the grounds advanced for it: public health and moral retribution. This Article engages with a third, underexamined rationale for HIV criminalization: sexual autonomy. Nondisclosure prosecutions purport to ensure “informed consent” to sex. However, almost all other forms of sexual deception — including deceptions that may jeopardize the partner’s health — are lawful; rape law expressly accommodates an expectation that men may lie to get sex from women. Neither public health nor retributive considerations adequately justify singling out HIV from other, permitted forms of sexual deception. Moreover, most HIV transmission and nondisclosure takes place between men, but a large majority of prosecutions involve men accused of nondisclosing to women. The inconsistency of HIV laws with their ostensible rationales, their arbitrary inclusions and exclusions, and the striking disparities in HIV prosecutions all tend to raise suspicion that discriminatory impulses may be at work.
Criminal laws and their implementation tend to frame HIV as a crime that matters most when it disrupts expectations that non-drug-injecting heterosexuals should be immune to anxiety about HIV. They situate HIV as fairly benign when contained within stigmatized populations such as gay men, intravenous drug users, Africans and sex workers. When HIV-positive people transgress these boundaries and cause heterosexual men and women to worry about HIV, though, this transgression is often punished as a crime, even when the behavior poses no transmission risk. HIV laws and their implementation raise concern that discriminatory fallacies about race, gender and sexuality may shape perceptions of whether, when and why HIV is a crime.
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Monday, June 23, 2014
I usually don't publicize older articles on SSRN but I saw this interesting piece (recently uploaded) by Syracuse's Keith Bybee, who is always interesting. The abstract reads:
What do we talk about when we talk about gender imbalance on the bench? The first thing we do is keep track of the number of female judges. Once the data has been gathered, we then argue about what the disparity between men and women in the judiciary means. These arguments about meaning are not freestanding. On the contrary, I claim that debates over gender imbalance occur within the context of a broader public debate over the nature of judicial decisionmaking. I argue that this public debate revolves around dueling conceptions of the judge as impartial arbiter and as politically motivated policymaker. These two conceptions provide the only current options for making sense of gender imbalance. Calls for gender equity do not fit easily with the conventional conception of impartial adjudication; as a result, arguments about the importance of increasing the number of female judges tend to be assimilated into the conventional conception of preference-driven policymaking. Thus, given this structure of debate, discussions about the meaning of gender imbalance typically devolve into bickering about politicized courts. I conclude by considering how arguments about gender imbalance might be productively re-cast by moving beyond the basic conceptions that currently structure debate over the courts.
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Kimberly Joy-Lockely at Mississippi Law has uploaded "How Gender Bias Negatively Affects Soldiers with PTSD." Its abstract reads:
The Veteran’s Administration (VA) is charged with caring for our nation’s veterans, but their procedures allow for a gender bias that is causing countless veterans with post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD) to remain without adequate help. Though women have been involved in every military conflict in the United States, women continue to be treated differently than men. Women were not granted official military status until 1949, but they currently make up the fastest growing portion of the veteran population. The impending lift of the ban on women in combat will likely only increase women’s involvement in the military, so their disparate treatment must be dealt with quickly to avoid an increase in an already prevalent problem.
The VA only currently recognizes two types of PTSD: Military Sexual Trauma-related PTSD (MST) and Combat-related PTSD. MST complaints increased 46% from 2012 to 2013. An estimated 26,000 men and women experienced MST in 2011, but only 3,300 of those victims filed reports. Increased numbers of women are seeing combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 15% of active duty soldiers are females. Because of the gender bias in the military sexual trauma reporting process and the VA in-processing, the already over-burdened VA system has become even more inefficient and female and male veterans alike are the ones harmed.
Various failures on the VA’s part account for veterans’ difficulties in obtaining earned and promised benefits. For example, the two types of PTSD have different burden of proof structures, and the interviewers who determine whether or not a veteran gets benefits have an extreme gender bias. Even worse, the VA did not offer mental healthcare services to women until 1988, and the VA currently only has four facilities dedicated to women’s care.
Men are expected to be “stronger” than to have psychological or emotional issues and women who are already often perceived as “weaker” do not wish to add to that perception by admitting any struggles. Each sex fears retribution, loss of promotion, loss of opportunity to re-enlist, and loss of the respect of their superiors and/or peers. Though Congress has recently attempted a weak solution, it is quite simply not even close to being enough to close the gender gap. This paper proposes a three-tiered solution focusing on enhancing reporting schemes within the military and the relationship between the military and the VA, restructuring the PTSD intake within the VA, and adopting a common sense approach to VA benefits.
Part I of this paper will discuss the history of women in the military, the history of PTSD, and gender bias’ role in PTSD; part II of this paper will discuss and analyze the military’s, Congress’, and the VA’s failures in consistently and adequately serving soldiers and veterans with PTSD. Part III of this paper will discuss ways in which the military and VA can improve including recent Congressional steps that have attempted to do so.
Friday, June 13, 2014
CALL FOR PROPOSALS TO EDIT SPECIAL ISSUE
Volume 41.2, December 2015
Deadline of September 30th, 2014
The Australian Feminist Law Journal calls for submissions for the positions of Special Editor(s) of a Special Themed Issue of the Journal, namely Volume 41.2 (December 2015). Special Editors work in conjunction with the Editorial Board to create a theme, solicit articles, organize the referee process, make publication decisions and guide author revisions, subject to the oversight of the Board who will ensure consistency with the AFLJ’s focus on critical feminist approaches to law and justice, broadly conceived. As an international Critical Legal Journal we publish research informed by critical theory, cultural and literary theory, jurisprudential, postcolonial and psychoanalytic approaches, amongst other critical research practices. Each journal issue normally comprises 6-8 articles of between 8,000 to 12,000 words, including footnotes. Special Editors are encouraged to plan their Themed Issue around a conference, workshop, or other mode of organizing preparations for the research and publication theme, including a public call for papers.
Monday, June 2, 2014
Volume 26, Number 2 (2014)
Aurora E. Bewicke
The 2012 guilty verdict issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in theThomas Lubanga Dyilo case has brought significant attention to the issue of child soldiering. Yet, despite global attempts to criminalize child soldier recruitment, armed groups’ willingness to capitalize on children’s inherent vulnerabilities and the proliferation of small arms have resulted in the continued use of large numbers of both boys and girls in armed conflict today. These youths suffer physical injury and psychological trauma. After the fighting has finished, they face further challenges reintegrating into civilian life. Girl soldiers in particular frequently experience reproductive health problems and gender-specific stigmatization. Yet, until recently, post-conflict justice mechanisms designed to address suffering and help populations transition have systematically failed to address the needs of both women and children, in particular the needs of girl soldiers. Even among programs initiated to reintegrate and rehabilitate child soldiers, very few have focused on girls, and some have even excluded them from the process. This Article will explore one of the main pillars of transitional justice, namely reparations, within this context. Specifically, it will address how to more effectively realize the right to reparations for girl soldiers. December 2011 witnessed the world’s first reparations judgment on the basis of unlawful child soldier recruitment, according to which Colombian paramilitary leader Fredy Rendón Herrera was sentenced and ordered to pay compensation for the illegal recruitment of minors, including girls. Following the March 2012 verdict in the Lubanga case—unless the conviction is overturned on appeal—we will now have the privilege to witness the ICC’s first judicial reparations procedures unfold, even if the implementation of these reparations remains some time away.
This Article examines the intersection of law, religion, and culture in the evolution of polygamy in the Jewish tradition. It traces the development of Jewish thought on polygamy over time by assembling and analyzing relevant discussions, arguments, decisions, and biblical interpretations from the time of the Hebrew Bible passages, when plural marriage was an accepted part of Jewish society, to the early Middle Ages when the practice was formally and conclusively rejected. In doing so, the Article attempts to untangle the various influences—both practical and doctrinal, internal and external—on the evolution of marriage law in Jewish communities. These findings highlight the mutable nature of marriage norms within a religious community, the adaptability of religious doctrine to the practical needs of the community, and the potentially progressive force of religious morality in advancing women’s rights.
Mifepristone Protocol Legislation— The Anti-Choice Movement’s Disingenuous Method of Attack on the Reproductive Rights of Women and How Courts Should Respond
Laurah J. Samuels
In the past decade, five states have passed laws prohibiting the off-label use of the abortion-inducing drug mifepristone. While these laws are ostensibly passed to protect women from misuse of a dangerous drug, in actuality they represent one of the latest steps in the anti-choice movement’s efforts to dismantle the abortion right iterated in Roe v. Wade and controlled by Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. These laws prevent doctors from practicing evidence-based medicine in the manner that they believe best serves their patients, and cost women time and money while potentially exposing them to unnecessary side effects and risks. In addition, these laws force women with pregnancies of forty-nine to sixty-three days of gestation to undergo surgical abortions when medical abortions would be equally appropriate. As with most anti-choice initiatives, the women who are the most affected are those who are most vulnerable. Women without economic or family resources, those in abusive relationships, and teenagers, who often discover their pregnancies later than adult women, are required to undergo unnecessary surgical procedures and spend money and time that they cannot afford because of politically-motivated legislation without a legitimate medical rationale.
Maximizing VA Benefits for Survivors of Military Sexual Trauma: A Practical Guide for Survivors and Their Advocates
Evan R. Seamone and David M. Traskey
Military Sexual Trauma (MST) is an imprecise term that basically relates to “sexual assault or repeated, unsolicited, threatening acts of sexual harassment that occurs during military service.” Despite a variety of definitions for “sexual assault” and “sexual trauma” (e.g., some including verbal harassment), and differences in populations sampled (e.g., active duty members versus treatment-seeking veterans), estimates consistently indicate that that just over 20% of females and 1% of males are sexually assaulted in a physical manner during their service. The numbers rise substantially to 20% of males and 70% of females in studies where verbal trauma is included in the definition. Importantly, the term MST was “created to capture the different forms of sexual maltreatment reported by military personnel.” Thus, MST “is not a syndrome, diagnosis, or construct associated with clear treatment indications.” Instead, it represents a type of stressor that can result in such maladies. Recent and renewed interest in the MST epidemic has resulted in legislative proposals to revamp the entire military justice system to hold perpetrators accountable and encourage survivors to report their abuse, as well as ongoing efforts within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to accommodate MST survivors’ needs for medical treatment and empathic, bias-free benefits adjudication. However, commentators emphasize the likelihood that pervasive systemic oversights within the VA and the Department of Defense (DoD) will result in continued incidences of MST among active duty service members and the erroneous denial of VA benefits to MST survivors who, in many cases, desperately need and rightfully deserve them.
A PDF of the full article can be accessed online here.
Anne E. Silver
Can consent to medical treatment be voluntary when legal rights, benefits, and protections are conditioned on the completion of surgery? This Note will analyze this question by applying the doctrine of informed consent and basic bioethical principles to the “medical model” that has emerged as the dominant method for determining the legal status of transgender and intersex individuals. Under the medical model, reclassification of legal sex—a process that provides access to legal rights, resources, and benefits—is available to trans persons only after the individual has undergone permanent, body-altering surgery. This Note will argue that conditioning legal status on the completion of surgery coerces or manipulates consent in such a manner as to render consent involuntary under the doctrine of informed consent. This Note will suggest alternatives to the medical model that do not violate the doctrine of informed consent and basic bioethical norms.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Here is the final and revised schedule of the awesome Collaborative Research Network on Feminist Legal Theory at today's Law & Society Conference. Hope to have some live blogging from Jamie Abrams.
WEDNESDAY, MAY 28
Book Discussion: Becoming Sexual by Danielle Egan 7 pm, University of Minnesota, Lindquist & Vennum Conference Room
THURSDAY, MAY 29
Alternatives to Marriage, Chair: June Carbone
Erez Aloni, Beyond Recognition: Redistribution in Family Law
Jessica Feinberg, The Survival of Non-Marital Relationship Statuses in the Same-Sex Marriage Era: A Proposal
Leslie Harris,Drifting Toward Marriage: How and Why Legal Structures for Alternative Family Forms Converge on Marriage
Theodore Seto, A Coasian Theory of Marriage
Discussants: Kerry Abrams, June Carbone
Feminist Perspectives on Health Care, Chair: Kara Loewentheil
Jamie Abrams, Revealing the Illusion of Patient Autonomy and the Ghost of Roe’s Medical Model
Kara Loewentheil, When Free Exercise Is a Burden: Protecting “Third Parties” In Religious Accommodation Law
Seema Mohapatra, Time to Lift the Veil of Inequality in Health Care Coverage: Using Corporate Law to Defend the Affordable Care Act’s Reproductive Health Care Mandate
Discussants: Jessica Waters, Margaux Hall
ART and Parentage, Chair: Wendy Bach
Courtney Joslin, The Biology Myth
Jody Madiera, The Legal Consequences of Infertility Patients’ Self-Identification as Consumer or Patient
Dara Purvis, Fathers, Abortion, and Equal Rights
Kara Swanson, Alternative Insemination and Adoption: Historical Perspectives
Discussants: Johanna Bond, Deborah Dinner, Marie Failinger
Same Sex Marriage and Divorce, Chair: William Kuby
Cynthia Godsoe, Considering Gay Parenthood
Zvi Triger and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat, Same-Sex Divorce and the Right to Divorce
Ann Tweedy, Same-Sex Marriage and Indian Tribes
Deborah Widiss, Federal Marriage Discrimination, Take Two
Discussant: William Kuby
"Just the Facts:” Expertise and Empirical Evidence as Movement Strategies, Chair: Rachel Rebouche
Libby Adler, Facts About Gay People
Aziza Ahmed, Medical Evidence and Expertise in Abortion Jurisprudence
Elizabeth Kukura, Contested Care: The Politics of Research, Evidence and Knowledge in U.S. Childbirth Policies
Discussants: Elizabeth MacDowell, Rachel Rebouche FRIDAY, MAY 30
Roundtable: Feminist Legal Theory Half a Century after the Second Wave
Moderator/Discussant: Clare Huntington
Susan Appleton and Susan Stiritz, Legal Education Gone Wild: Law and Literature and Sex
Naomi Cahn and June Carbone, Unequal Terms
Max Eichner, Second-Wave Feminism and the Market
Jennifer Hendricks, Schrodinger’s Child: Non-Identity, Probability, and Reproductive Decision-Making
The Economics of Intergenerational Care, Chair: Dirk Hartog
Alicia Kelly, Intergenerational Economies
Nina Kohn, Valuing Care
Peggie Smith, Compensating Family Members to Care for Elderly Relatives
Amy Ziettlow, “Money and Stuff:” Gen X Caregivers and Financial Decision-making for Their Baby Boomer Parents
Discussant: Naomi Cahn
Roundtable: Anniversary of Fineman’s Feminism and Legal Theory Project, Chair: Hila Keren
June Carbone, Univ. of Minnesota Law
Martha A. Fineman, Emory Law School
Michele Goodwin, Univ. of Minnesota Law
Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, Univ. of Minnesota Law School
Dorothy Roberts, Univ. of Pennsylvania Law School
Laura Spitz, Cornell Law School
Jessica Dixon Weaver, Southern Methodist Univ. Law School
Discussant: Laura Kessler
Subordination and Power in Families, Chair: Laura Kessler
Samantha Godwin, A Feminist Critique of Parental Rights
Pamela Laufer-Ukeles, The Case Against Separating the Care from the Caregiver: A Relational Perspective on Children’s Rights
Aníbal Rosario Lebrón, Scorned Law: Rethinking Impeachment Rules for Battered Women
Sarah Swan, Third-Party Policing Comes Home: Gender, Control, and Responsibilization in Family Life
Discussants: Wendy Bach, Laura Kessler, Rachel Rebouche
Sexual Violence, Chair: Jessica Clarke
Mary Ann Franks, Men, Women, and Optimal Violence
Ummni Khan, Representing ‘John’: The Legal Reification of Sex Trade Clients and their Potential Status as Constitutional Subjects
Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, Gendered Harms and their Interface with International Criminal Law: Norms, Challenges, and Domestication
Menaka Raguparan, Consent/non Consent: Challenging Sexual Assault Law’s Generative Meaning
Valarie Vojdik, Theorizing Violence Against Men
Discussants: Neha Jain,Deborah Tuerkheimer, Bela August Walker
Families and Family – New Books Exploring the Past and Imagining the Future
Chair: Laurie Kohn
Jill Hasday, Family Law Reimagined
Clare Huntington, Failure to Flourish: How Law Undermines Family Relationships
Angela Onwuachi-Willig, According to Our Hearts: Rhinelander v. Rhinelander and the Law of the Multiracial Family
Discussants: Katharine Bartlett,Robin Lenhardt
SATURDAY, MAY 31
Parenting Outside of Marriage: The Legal History of Fathers’ Rights, Illegitimacy, and Child Custody from Blackstone to Reagan(co-sponsor Law and History), Chair/Discussant: Kristin Collins
Sarah Abramowicz, The Construction of Motherhood and the Regulation of Fatherhood in Early 19th-Century English Child Custody Law
Deborah Dinner, Liberated Patriarchs: The Fathers’ Rights Movement, 1960-1980
Serena Mayeri, Unmarried Fathers, Sex Equality, and Marital Supremacy, 1970-1983
Mary Ziegler, Illegitimate Conceptions: Unwed Motherhood and the Remaking of the Abortion Wars
Ok, we have two days of the writing retreat under our belt. How are we doing?
Sarah Morath says "Having a week dedicated to writing is a treat. Grades are in, the fall seems like the distant future, the kids are still in school. This week is my week to write!" She adds: "The week is further sweetened by lunching with my colleagues each day. (Eating a proper lunch in good company four days in a row! Now, that's as rare as having a week dedicated to writing)."
Me? It's been slower than usual for me. Lots of stops and starts. Both figuratively and literally. I'm thinking its because last year I had a discrete project - a book introduction. This year I am in the middle of chapter 4 of my book project.
But it's a new day...
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Akiva Miller at Hebrew University has uploaded an article, "The Policing of Religious Marriage Prohibitions in Israel: Religion, State, and Information Technology." The abstract reads:
The State of Israel applies religious law in all matters of marriage and divorce. For the Jewish population of Israel, the law of marriage includes religious prohibitions on certain kinds of marriages, most notably the prohibition against intermarriage and the prohibition against marrying a mamzer. Over the years, Israel’s state-religious authorities have adopted a variety of methods and practices for policing these prohibitions. These include stringent procedures for premarital registration inquiries; use of databases for collecting information on prohibited persons; recording the possibility of mamzer status of newborn children; special Beit Din proceedings for handling cases of possible marriage prohibitions; Beit Din-initiated investigations of possible prohibited persons, including minors; and special “Jewishness investigations” for people of questionable Jewish ancestry. The article surveys the law and practice of these policing methods, as well as the acute social problems and injustices they cause. Lastly, the article discuses ways in which these methods change traditional Jewish marriage.
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Denver University Law Review Symposium on the Work of Professor Ann Scales, Volume 91 (2013)
Raising Hell, Making Miracles: The Everlovin’ Legal Imagination of Ann Scales
Catharine A. MacKinnon
Taking a Break from Acrimony: The Feminist Method of Ann Scales
Feminists at the Border
Feminism and Gay Liberation: Together in Struggle
“Stuck” on Love
Tamara L. Kuennen
How Masculinities Distribute Power: The Influence of Ann Scales
Ann C. McGinley & Frank Rudy Cooper
On Surviving Legal De-Education: An Allegory for a Renaissance in Legal Education
Robin Walker Sterling
Monday, May 5, 2014
From the Advocate:
A new book, five years in the making, hopes to provide one of the most comprehensive and up-to-date resource on the complex and often misunderstood issues affecting trans individuals.
Due out later this year from Oxford University Press, Trans Bodies, Trans Selves looks to be the most comprehensive trans resource ever published. The book features more than 200 contributors, and covers topics like the gender spectrum, trans history, health, cultural and social topics, and gender theory.
Weighing in at 672-pages, the Associated Press describes the book as, "Encyclopedic in scope, conversational in tone, and candid about complex sexual issues." After nearly five years in the making, the text hopes to impact a much-maligned and misunderstood community at a critical point in its history.
Saturday, May 3, 2014
There's been a bit of a campaign to "read more women" to counter the bias toward male authors and male by-lines in fiction writing and reviews. This author extends that to reading women's research for work in Are You Reading Enough Academic Women.
So Walsh’s campaign prompted me to think about gender inequalities that arise in scholarly publishing and citations. How does gender affect who does what kinds of scholarship? Is there a gender gap in academic publishing? What would a VIDA count of scholarship show us? Luckily, some recent studies and news reports have explored the impact of gender on publishing.
While gender bias in academia is widely discussed, it is not always easily documented. That’s why B.F. Walter, Daniel Maliniak, and Ryan Powers collected data to demonstrate how it plays out in a key metric of academic life: citations. Their study focused on 12 leading journals in international relations, examining 3,000 articles published between 1980 and 2006. The researchers analyzed “citation counts” because, Walter notes, “they are increasingly used as a key measure of a scholar’s performance and impact”—the currency of influence and prestige, as well as factors in hiring and promotion.
After controlling for factors including venue, methodology, subject, the author’s institution, and the significance of the publication, Walter and her colleagues discovered that gender mattered even when all other factors were held constant. In fact, gender was one of the best predictors of whether an article would be cited or not. Walter writes that women authors received “0.7 cites for every 1 cite that a male author would receive.” Untenured women were the least likely to be cited.
examined 1.8 million scholarly articles, from 1665 (!) to 2011. It found that women accounted for just 21.9 percent of authorships and 17 percent of single-authored papers. Those rates jump to 27.2 percent and 26 percent—slightly more respectable numbers, but still nothing to write home about—if you shorten the time frame to 1990 through 2012. Oh, and if an article had multiple authors, less than 20 percent of those listed first were women.
Overall, the results of Eigenfactor’s gender project demonstrated that the percentage of female authors is less than the proportion of women in the full-time ranks of the academy. The study shows that women are making small gains in academic publishing, but the results are far from heartening.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Is Blogging Scholarship? The short answer is no. But...this article concludes it is incredibly important as the venue of intellectual innovation and creativity, and thus should be valued "as an avenue of scholarship" even if different in kind from the classic tenure-type work.
Much of the interesting innovation in blogging, though, comes from the rank of the untenured, the alt-ac, and the amateur enthusiasts. Discussions of whether blogging is scholarship shouldn’t make it seem like blogging is a scholarly indulgence.
Blogging may be more informal and have different structural demands and pressures to the peer-review model. But it’s providing some of the most interesting historical commentary out there right now, and with the right encouragement, it might start leading to some of the most original research, too.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
The story in the NYT, now a tad old in blogsphere terms, starts:
Reading a book review in a well-known periodical? Chances are, the byline belongs to a man.
In its annual count of male and female bylines in book reviews, magazines and literary journals, VIDA, a women’s literary organization, revealed that in 2013, the publications still largely favored men over women.
At The New York Review of Books, there were 212 male book reviewers and 52 female; at The Atlantic, there were 14 male book reviewers and three female; at Harper’s, there were 24 male book reviewers and 10 female.