Gender and the Law Prof Blog

Editor: Tracy A. Thomas
University of Akron School of Law

Friday, December 13, 2019

Professor Linda Mullenix Files Equal Pay Lawsuit Against University of Texas Law School

 

Linda S Mullenix

From the complaint in Mullenix v. University of Texas (W.D. Tex. filed 12/12/19)

Plaintiff Linda Susan Mullenix files Plaintiff’s Original Complaint & Jury Demand, and sues the University of Texas for violations of the Equal Pay Act, as well as for sex discrimination and retaliation. Over the past three years, Professor Linda Mullenix, one of UT Law’s most distinguished professors, has been paid $134,449 less than male professor Robert Bone. Professor Bone has the same above-average teacher evaluation rating as
Professor Mullenix, but almost a decade less overall teaching experience, fewer than a third of Professor Mullenix’s overall publications, and fewer professional honors. This pay gap is sex discrimination.

 

Moreover, UT Law has retaliated against Professor Mullenix for opposing the law school’s unequal pay practices. For the last several years, Professor Mullenix has received among the lowest raises of any tenured faculty. For example, Professor Mullenix received a $1,500 raise for the 2018-2019 academic year, which was the lowest raise given to any faculty member. That same year Professor Bone, and many other professors less accomplished than Professor Mullenix, received $10,000 raises, some of the highest raises given. Dean Farnsworth also retaliated against Professor Mullenix and attempted to chill reports of discrimination by telling Professor Mullenix that he would pay her the same as Professor Bone only if she agreed to resign in two years. At that time and at present, Professor Mullenix has no plans to resign.

 

Another example of retaliation is that despite Professor Mullenix’s repeated requests to be appointed Associate Dean for Research or to be put on the prestigious Budget Committee, she has been relegated to “do-nothing” committees that have little impact on the governance of the law school. Most disturbingly, because of Professor
Mullenix’s opposition to UT Law’s unequal pay practices, she has been made a pariah by the administration. New professors are told to stay away from her and that she is “poison.” Professor Mullenix’s marginalization is also held out as a warning to other professors who might speak out.

 

UT Law has reason to be worried about others speaking out about unequal pay and sex discrimination. For at least the last three years, UT Law has, on average, paid tenured female professors over $20,000 less than tenured male professors. By paying Professor Mullenix less than a similarly-situated male professor and retaliating against her for opposing unequal pay based on gender, UT Law has violated Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, and the Texas Labor Code.

December 13, 2019 in Equal Employment, Law schools, Women lawyers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, December 4, 2019

AALS Programs on the History and Modern Implications of the 19th Amendment

Legal History Section, A Century of Women's Suffrage

2020 marks one hundred years since the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified, ushering in a century of women's suffrage in the United States. This program brings together scholars writing on the history of women's suffrage, including scholars who will explore the suffrage movement that culminated in the Nineteenth Amendment; address how the Nineteenth Amendment affected political parties in the subsequent century; and compare the women's suffrage movement to analogous social movements.

Speaker: Dr. Martha S. Jones, Johns Hopkins University

Speaker from a Call for Papers: Elizabeth D. Katz, Washington University in St. Louis School of Law

Speaker: Holly McCammon, Vanderbilt University Law School

Speaker from a Call for Papers: Kara W. Swanson, Northeastern University School of Law
 
Moderator: Evan C. Zoldan, University of Toledo College of Law
 
 
Women in Legal Education, A Century Since Suffrage: How Did We Get Here? Where Will We Go? How Will We Get There?
This session will explore the legal accomplishments and failures of the women’s movement since 1920. A century ago, women won the right to vote. Since then, women garnered additional rights in virtually every legal area, including in the realms of employment, property, reproduction, education, care taking, sexual freedom, and protection from violence. Despite significant success, much work remains. This session will consider the future of the women’s movement through a critical examination of our past.
Speaker from a Call for Papers: Lolita K. Buckner Inniss, SMU Dedman School of Law
Speaker from a Call for Papers: Nan D. Hunter, Georgetown University Law Center
Speaker from a Call for Papers: Leslie G. Jacobs, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law
Moderator: Rona Kaufman, Duquesne University School of Law
Speaker from a Call for Papers: Diane J. Klein, University of La Verne College of Law
Speaker from a Call for Papers: Danaya C. Wright, University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law
 
 
Constitutional Law Section:. The Constitution and the Modern Right to Vote

In honor of the 100th anniversary of the Nineteenth Amendment and the 150th anniversary of the Fifteenth, the Constitutional Law Section is putting on a joint program with the Section on Election Law (co-sponsored by the Section on Legal History). The program will run from 2 pm – 5 pm on Thursday, January 2nd in Virginia Suite C.

The overall program is described as follows:

While the constitutional amendments related to voting rights have suggested that all citizens ought to be included in the franchise, the modern right to vote has nonetheless been heavily contested. The efforts to meaningfully include all citizens in the franchise in the century after the Nineteenth Amendment (and the 150 years after the Fifteenth Amendment) have been complicated, fraught, and have often diverged from the underlying idea of inclusion. Tensions still exist in modern voting rights law regarding the meaning of the right to vote, as illustrated by the litigation and activism around issues such as partisan and racial gerrymandering, voter identification, and proof of citizenship requirements. These examples reveal the complexities of the project of democratic inclusion, and this panel will explore how those complexities have evolved and are manifest in today’s right-to-vote doctrine.

Panel 1 (2:00 pm - 3:30 pm): This panel will explore the Nineteenth Amendment’s role in constitutional interpretation both inside and outside of the courts in the century after suffrage.

Speakers:   

Steven Calabresi, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Paula A. Monopoli, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (selected from a Call for Papers)
Reva B. Siegel, Yale Law School
Julie C. Suk, The Graduate Center, City University of New York

Moderator:  Louis J. Virelli III, Stetson University College of Law

 

December 4, 2019 in Conferences, Constitutional, Gender, Law schools, Legal History | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, November 25, 2019

The Best Law Schools for Women Law Students

The Best Law Schools for Women

Ever since the 2016 election and the legal turmoil that began shortly after President Donald Trump’s swearing in (and has continued to this day), thousands of college graduates — and women in particular — have been inspired to go to law school.

As our readers know, the latest Princeton Review law school rankings are out, and today, we’ll focus on yet another incredibly important ranking during the #MeToo #TimesUp era in America, an era where a woman who’s a law school graduate could become the Democratic nominee for president: The law schools with the greatest resources for women.***

According to Princeton Review, these are the law schools where women stand on equal footing with their male classmates:

  1. Stanford University School of Law
  2. Vermont Law School
  3. University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law
  4. New England Law – Boston
  5. University of Toledo College of Law
  6. UC Davis School of Law
  7. Washington University School of Law – St. Louis
  8. Brooklyn Law School
  9. Temple University Beasley School of Law

Law school may be the perfect place for women in America to resist, persist, and prove that the future is female. The law is a powerful tool, and we hope that women who want change will wield it wisely. 

November 25, 2019 in Gender, Law schools | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, November 1, 2019

The Elusive Goal of Gender Equity in Law School Enrollment

Deborah Jones Merritt & Kyle P. McEntee, Gender Equity in Law School Enrollment: An Elusive Goal, Journal of Legal Education (forthcoming)

Women finally make up more than half of law students nationwide, but that milestone masks significant gender inequities in law school enrollment. Women constitute an even larger percentage of the potential applicant pool: for almost two decades, they have earned more than 57% of all college degrees. As we show in this article, women are less likely than men to apply to law school — or to be admitted if they do apply. Equally troubling, women attend less prestigious law schools than men. The law schools that open the most employment doors for their graduates enroll significantly fewer women than schools with worse job outcomes and weaker access to the legal profession.

We explore here the factors that may contribute to this ongoing gender gap in law school attendance. We also propose several strategies for closing the gap. Enrollment equity alone will not put women on an equal footing with men; a sizable literature probes gender biases that pervade the law school environment. Recognizing and addressing the enrollment gap in legal education, however, is an essential first step toward improving the representation of women throughout the legal profession.

November 1, 2019 in Education, Gender, Law schools | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, October 31, 2019

Call for Panelists AALS "Teaching in a #MeToo World"

 

I am writing to solicit volunteers to participate in a moderated panel discussion at the AALS Annual Meeting. The Session, Teaching in a #Metoo World will take place on Friday, January 3, 2020 from 3:30-5:15pm.

 

This Session will focus on how we teach law in the age of #Metoo, Time’s Up, Justice Kavanaugh, Intersectionality, President Trump, Proper Pronoun Use, the Women’s March, and other recent developments. This session will consider how we, in our capacity as law teachers, are adapting our teaching as the world around us changes. Panelists are invited to discuss their teaching innovations: courses they have created or adapted or other ways in which they have engaged with students in this #Metoo World.

 

If you have created a new course, adapted an existing course, or otherwise shifted your engagement with students, in response to recent changes in our world, please consider applying to participate on this panel. Panelists will participate in an informal moderated discussion of how they have adapted their teaching. The audience will be encouraged to participate in the discussion by sharing comments and asking questions.

 

If you would like to be part of this panel, please email a description of your Teaching/Student Engagement Innovation (limited to 650 words) to Rona Kaufman at kitchenr@duq.edu by Monday, November 4th (yes, that is just 5 days from now).

 

Panelists will be selected and confirmed by Wednesday, November 6th.

October 31, 2019 in Conferences, Law schools | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, October 2, 2019

Conference "Gender Equity In Law Schools"

Conference, Villanova Law School, Gender Equity in Law Schools

Friday, October 25, 8:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. Arthur M. Goldberg '66 Commons Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

Despite the significant demographic change in the gender composition of law faculty during the last 25 years, persistent questions of unequal treatment and unconscious bias continue to hamper the ability of female faculty to achieve full equality in law schools.

  • The symposium will examine a broad variety of issues relating to gender equity in law schools, such as:
  • Teaching issues — whether excellent teaching is valued in law schools, whether women faculty have a disproportionate teaching load, whether women are disproportionately present/absent in particular substantive courses, whether women are evaluated differently by students
  • Scholarly issues — whether areas of particular interest to women are undervalued, whether the work of women is given equal weight by law reviews, and whether female faculty bring a different voice to legal scholarship
  • Service issues — whether non-scholarly tasks performed by female faculty disproportionately disadvantage them with respect to status and compensation
  • The gender disparity in legal writing and in clinical education, which also produces substantial pay disparities that fall disproportionately on women in legal education
  • Intersections with issues of race, class, gender, and sexual identity

The symposium will also examine recent pay discrimination litigation at Denver Law School and focus on best practices for law schools that want to avoid similar litigation in the future.

This event takes place on Friday, October 25 from 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. in the Arthur M. Goldberg '66 Commons at the Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law. The program is approved for 7 substantive CLE credits.

October 2, 2019 in Conferences, Law schools, Women lawyers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, September 17, 2019

The Trump Bump Sees More Women Going to Law School

Trump is Driving Women Into Law School

A few short years ago, law schools were falling out of favor with young Americans looking for a route to affluence, influence, or both. Business schools, on the other hand, were attracting more students than ever. ***

This year, the number of applicants to U.S. law schools is up an estimated 3.2%, after rising 8.1% last year.
 
Still, a law degree is rightly no longer seen as quite the path to a secure and remunerative career that it used to be, and a lot of today’s law school applicants seem less interested in their future earnings profiles than in using their legal skills to fight the power, or something like that. In one survey conducted by test-prep provider Kaplan, 87% of law-school admissions officers said “the current domestic political climate” was a significant factor in 2018’s applications increase. In another, 45% of students taking Kaplan LSAT prep courses this February said the political climate affected their decision to apply for law school, up from 32% a year earlier.

 

In legal circles this phenomenon has come to be called the “Trump bump,” which sounds about right. More precisely, with young people and college graduates both tending to give the president low approval ratings, it seems likely that most of these political-climate-inspired applicants are inspired by opposition to Trump and his policies. Also, all of this year’s and most of last year’s applicant gains were driven by women, who as a rule like the current president a lot less than men do. As recently as 2013, women were still a minority among applicants to U.S. law schools. This year they accounted for 55%. So U.S. law schools will for at least the next few years be churning out more smart, politically engaged, probably left-leaning lawyers, most of them women.

September 17, 2019 in Law schools, Women lawyers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, June 11, 2019

CFP Gender Equity in Law Schools

CALL FOR PAPERS VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY CHARLES WIDGER SCHOOL OF LAW

ANNUAL NORMAN J. SHACHOY SYMPOSIUM, OCTOBER 25, 2019 VILLANOVA LAW REVIEW 

“GENDER EQUITY IN LAW SCHOOLS” 

            Call for Papers:  The Villanova Law Review invites proposals from faculty to present and/or publish at the upcoming annual symposium, which will focus on gender equity in law schools.  Accepted presenters will have the opportunity to participate in the symposium at the Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law in Villanova, Pennsylvania, on Friday, October 25, 2019.  In addition, their papers will be published in the symposium issue of the Villanova Law Review, volume 65. 

            Deadline for Proposals:  July 15, 2019

             Submission Requirements:  Submissions should include contact information, a CV, and an abstract (up to 500 words) of the proposed presentation.  Preference will be given to submitters who intend to write an article for the symposium issue.  Submissions should be forwarded to Professor Cathy Lanctot, lanctot@law.villanova.edu, and to Alexandra Rice, arice4@law.villanova.edu. Managing Editor of Operations for the Villanova Law Review. 

             Selected presenters will be notified by August 1, 2019.  The Villanova Law Review will cover reasonable travel expenses for presenters. 

             Scope of Topic:  Despite the significant demographic change in the gender composition of law faculty during the last 25 years, persistent questions of unequal treatment and unconscious bias continue to hamper the ability of female faculty to achieve full equality in law schools. 

        The symposium will examine a broad variety of issues relating to gender equity in law schools, such as:  teaching issues (e.g., whether excellent teaching is valued in law schools, whether women faculty have a disproportionate teaching load, whether women are disproportionately present/absent in particular substantive courses, whether women are evaluated differently by students);  scholarly issues (e.g., whether areas of particular interest to women are undervalued, whether the work of women is given equal weight by law reviews, and whether female faculty bring a different voice to legal scholarship); service issues (whether non-scholarly tasks performed by female faculty disproportionately disadvantage them with respect to status and compensation); the gender disparity in legal writing and in clinical education, which also produces substantial pay disparities that fall disproportionately on women in legal education; intersections with issues of race, class, gender, and sexual identity;  and the effect of gender inequity on law students.  The symposium will also examine recent pay discrimination litigation at Denver Law School and focus on best practices for law schools that want to avoid similar litigation in the future. 

June 11, 2019 in Call for Papers, Law schools | Permalink | Comments (0)

Feminist Legal Theory CRN Engagement

A message from the organizers of the Feminist Legal Theory Critical Research Network:

Dear Feminist Legal Theory CRN members, 

First, thank you for a fabulous annual meeting!  Our twenty-two panels were an enormous success, generating tremendous interest and engagement.  The submission cycle for 2020 will come before we know it, so we need volunteers to plan the CRN panels for the LSA annual meeting in Denver in 2020. If you are interested in helping to plan next year’s meeting, please sign up here by Friday, June 7th.  

 Second, we write to follow up on the evening of action.  As you know, we converted the CRN’s social event into a brainstorming session to explore what we can do – as CRN members – in our scholarship, teaching, and advocacy to further gender equality generally and especially in light of the Supreme Court’s current make-up. There was a lot of energy and enthusiasm, and we generated many terrific ideas (see below) for each track: scholarship, teaching, and advocacy.  Our next step is that we need volunteers to (1) play a leadership role for each track, and (2) serve on the committee for each track.  Our goal is for each committee to develop an action plan for achieving some of the ideas we identified.  Each committee will work separately and then present the action plan at a gathering that will coincide with the AALS annual meeting, in D.C. in January. If you are interested in either leading or participating in these efforts, please use this sign-up sheet and respond by Friday, June 7th.  

 Finally, Susan Hazeldean volunteered (thank you, Susan!) to reactivate our TWEN site.  We will use this for all CRN communications from now on.  More information to come soon.   

 Many thanks,

 

Jamie Abrams 

Maxine Eichner

Clare Huntington

Daniela Kraiem

Elizabeth MacDowell

Maya Manian 

Seema Mohapatra

June 11, 2019 in Conferences, Law schools, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, April 15, 2019

Legal Rules of Professional Ethics as an Enforcement Mechanism Against Gender Violence and Harassment

Katherine Yon Ebright, Taking #MeToo Seriously in the Legal Profession, 32 Georgetown J. Legal Ethics (2019)

With the advent of the #MeToo movement, we have seen unprecedented interest in taking, and real initiatives to take, gender violence and harassment seriously. Actors and directors have been forced out of Hollywood. Conductors have been forced out of their concert halls, chefs out of their kitchens, professors out of the hallowed halls of academia. What of the legal profession? Attorneys are rarely professionally sanctioned for committing rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, or domestic violence. Indeed, some jurisdictions have interpreted these gendered acts as falling outside the ambit of the rules of professional conduct.

This Article examines how the legal profession has thus far addressed gender violence and harassment, as well as how it might do so in the future. Part I reviews different states’ rules of professional conduct and their interpretations with respect to gender violence and harassment. It homes in on state-to-state discrepancies in interpreting certain shared provisions that could be used for disciplining rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and domestic violence. Part II then reviews enforcement patterns for states that either do or might professionally sanction gender violence and harassment. Noting that enforcement rates are staggeringly low, Part II identifies deficiencies in the rules of professional conduct that permit abusers to keep practicing without professional sanction. Part III concludes by proposing a series of reforms that would harmonize states’ understandings of gender violence and harassment and address, to some extent, the enforcement problem.

April 15, 2019 in Equal Employment, Gender, Law schools | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, March 11, 2019

New Book: Unequal Profession: Race and Gender in Legal Academia

Meera Dao, Unequal Profession: Race and Gender in Legal Academia (Stanford U. Press 2019)

This book is the first formal, empirical investigation into the law faculty experience using a distinctly intersectional lens, examining both the personal and professional lives of law faculty members. Comparing the professional and personal experiences of women of color professors with white women, white men, and men of color faculty from assistant professor through dean emeritus, Unequal Profession explores how the race and gender of individual legal academics affects not only their individual and collective experience, but also legal education as a whole. Drawing on quantitative and qualitative empirical data, Meera E. Deo reveals how race and gender intersect to create profound implications for women of color law faculty members, presenting unique challenges as well as opportunities to improve educational and professional outcomes in legal education. Deo shares the powerful stories of law faculty who find themselves confronting intersectional discrimination and implicit bias in the form of silencing, mansplaining, and the presumption of incompetence, to name a few. Through hiring, teaching, colleague interaction, and tenure and promotion, Deo brings the experiences of diverse faculty to life and proposes a number of mechanisms to increase diversity within legal academia and to improve the experience of all faculty members.

March 11, 2019 in Books, Equal Employment, Law schools, Race | Permalink | Comments (0)

New Book: Unequal Profession: Race and Gender in Legal Academia

Meera Dao, Unequal Profession: Race and Gender in Legal Academia (Stanford U. Press 2019)

This book is the first formal, empirical investigation into the law faculty experience using a distinctly intersectional lens, examining both the personal and professional lives of law faculty members. Comparing the professional and personal experiences of women of color professors with white women, white men, and men of color faculty from assistant professor through dean emeritus, Unequal Profession explores how the race and gender of individual legal academics affects not only their individual and collective experience, but also legal education as a whole. Drawing on quantitative and qualitative empirical data, Meera E. Deo reveals how race and gender intersect to create profound implications for women of color law faculty members, presenting unique challenges as well as opportunities to improve educational and professional outcomes in legal education. Deo shares the powerful stories of law faculty who find themselves confronting intersectional discrimination and implicit bias in the form of silencing, mansplaining, and the presumption of incompetence, to name a few. Through hiring, teaching, colleague interaction, and tenure and promotion, Deo brings the experiences of diverse faculty to life and proposes a number of mechanisms to increase diversity within legal academia and to improve the experience of all faculty members.

March 11, 2019 in Books, Equal Employment, Law schools, Race | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, February 7, 2019

Law Schools Enrolling the Most Women

Friday, February 1, 2019

The Story of the First Woman (also the First Black Woman) Law Professor, Lutie Lytle

Taja-Nia Y. Henderson, "I Shall Talk to My Own People": The Intersectional Life and Times of Lutie A. Lytle, 102 Iowa L. Rev. 1983 (2017).

In the fall of 1898, the Chicago Tribune hailed Lutie A. Lytle of Topeka as the “only female law instructor in the world.” Notwithstanding this purported shattering of the legal academy’s glass ceiling, Lytle’s accomplishments—her path to the professoriate, and her career in the years following her appointment to the faculty of a Nashville law school—have been largely lost to historians of legal education. She is not among those honored or commemorated by our profession, and her name is largely unknown beyond a small circle of interest. The biographical sketch that follows fills this scholarly gap through an examination of Lytle as a historical figure, using contemporary newspaper accounts and other primary source material to provide context for her achievements and linking her life to previously understudied legal, political and social movements.

 

As a genre, biography seeks to use the life of the individual to tell a larger story about the collective. Feminist biography—probably best understood as both subgenre and method—has the same goals, but moves gender “to the center of the analysis.” This methodology asks not only how gender as a social category has impacted the lives of historical actors, but also how the unequal distribution of power resulting from existing gender hierarchies has influenced epistemologies of scholarly inquiry.

 

A biographical sketch of Lutie A. Lytle, a woman coming of age in the second half of the nineteenth century, warrants such treatment. Lytle’s career in the law was certainly impacted by gender as she was among the earliest cadre of women lawyers in the nation. As a student, she was the only woman enrolled in the Law Department of Central Tennessee College. When she was appointed as an instructor at the College, moreover, she was the only woman among the law school’s faculty. As a woman of African descent born during Reconstruction, however, Lytle (and her story) “cannot be captured wholly by” a methodology that moves only gender to the center. The intersection (or overlap) of Lytle’s identities as a woman of color and the daughter of former slaves requires that gender and race (and arguably, status and class) move to the center. In other words, a biographical sketch of Lytle’s life cannot privilege gender in isolation; it must also grapple with the persistence of race, racism, and the myriad legacies of chattel slavery in the subject’s world.

February 1, 2019 in Law schools, Race, Women lawyers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, January 3, 2019

Programs on Women and Law at AALS Annual Meeting

Thursday, January 3

 

10:30-12:15 WILE ("Women in Legal Education" Section), co-Sponsoring with the Section on Agricultural and Food Law: Worker Justice in the Food System.

One in six jobs in the U.S. is in the food supply chain, from restaurants, to grocery stores, to food processing, and production. These jobs offer low wages, little job security, and few benefits. In addition, they often include dangerous working conditions. And yet, food system workers are under protected by minimum wage and hour laws, workplace safety laws, and others. This panel will focus on three key issues facing food chain laborers today: sexual harassment, immigration restrictions and enforcement, and occupational health hazards.

Speaker: Jennifer M. Chacon, University of California, Irvine School of Law 

Speaker: Joan Flocks, University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law

Speaker: Tanya Kateri Hernandez, Fordham University School of Law 

Moderator: Margot Pollans, Pace University Elisabeth Haub School of Law

 

10:30-12:15pm Hot Topics: Narratives about Sexual Harassment & Sexual Violence: #MeToo, the Kavanaugh Allegations & Pending Changes to Title IX Enforcement  

Media coverage of the #MeToo movement and allegations that Justice Kavanaugh committed sexual assault fueled public discourse about sexual harassment and sexual violence throughout the past year. Two sets of competing narratives emerged about both the nature of sexual harassment and sexual violence and the appropriate institutional and public responses to disclosures and allegations. One set of narratives focused on survivors’ experiences of trauma, barriers to accessing resources, and inadequate responses following disclosures. The other set of narratives centered on individuals accused of committing sexual harassment or sexual violence, their identification as victims of false allegations, and claims of inadequate due process protections. In this presentation, scholars use the context of campus sexual misconduct and the proposed changes to Title IX guidance to address the wide range of narratives impacting sexual harassment and sexual violence law and policy.     

The Section on Civil Rights is co-sponsoring the session, and more information can be found at: https://memberaccess.aals.org/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?webcode=SesDetails&ses_key=97EB8580-018C-44C4-AD0E-B6D2F72B560F

 

1:30 pm - 3:15 pm AALS Discussion Group The Future of Sexual Harassment

This discussion group brings together scholars working on various dimensions of sexual harassment law at work and on campus. To ground the discussion, participants are encouraged to read and respond to the “Open Statement on Sexual Harassment” by Vicki Schultz, recently published in the Stanford Law Review at www.stanfordlawreview.org/metoo-symposium. The ensuing discussion will center on questions including: What is sexual harassment? What causes it? What makes a theory of harassment better or worse? Does harassment differ at work and on campus (and elsewhere), or by race, ethnicity, age, class, sexual orientation, gender non-conformity, or other factors? What can be done, in the law or elsewhere, to prevent and address harassment? How has activism and the law helped or hindered progress, whether historically and today? What are the dangers to be avoided in the future?

Discussion Group Participant: Rachel Arnow-Richman, University of Denver Sturm College of Law 

Discussion Group Participant: Jessica Clarke, Vanderbilt University Law School 
Discussion Group Participant: Ann C. McGinley, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law 
Discussion Group Participant: Melissa E. Murray, New York University School of Law 
Discussion Group Participant: Angela I. Onwuachi-Willig, Boston University School of Law 
Discussion Group Participant: Darren Rosenblum, Pace University Elisabeth Haub School of Law 
Discussion Group Participant: Leticia Saucedo, University of California, Davis, School of Law 
Discussion Group Participant: Vicki Schultz, Yale Law School 
Discussion Group Moderator: Brian Soucek, University of California, Davis, School of

 

1:30 pm - 3:15 pm American Bar Foundation Program, Women Trailblazers in the Law Oral History Project

The Women Trailblazers Project (WTP) oral history collection is a rich new trove of research materials, now readily accessible to legal academicians, historians and other scholars. The WTP, a collaborative research project of the American Bar Association and the American Bar Foundation, has taken comprehensive, full-life oral histories of over a hundred leading women pioneers in the legal profession nationwide. These senior women lawyers, judges and law professors were chosen for their exceptional career achievements and their contributions to opening opportunities for other women. They entered a male-dominated profession, graduating from law schools in the years ranging from the 1940s to the 1970s, and often faced blatant sex discrimination and a variety of other challenges. The Robert Crown Law Library at Stanford University has created a new website dedicated to displaying the WTP collection of oral histories and related materials.

Speaker: Barbara A. Babcock, Stanford Law School 

Speaker: Ms. Brooksley Born, Arnold & Porter LLP 
Speaker: Nancy Gertner, Harvard Law School 
Moderator: Ajay K. Mehrotra, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law 
Speaker: Beth Williams, Stanford Law School 

 

6:00 pm - 7:30 pm Women in Academic Leadership in Reception, Hosted by the University of Georgia School of Law

 

Friday, January 4

 

8:30 am - 10:15 am AALS Hot Topic Program, Religious Exemptions and Harm to Third Parties

Should the government be able to provide religious exemptions when they result in harm to third-parties? This question is particularly weighty at this moment in American history when religious exemptions have perhaps never been more controversial. In light of recent Supreme Court cases like Hobby Lobby and Masterpiece Cakeshop, some scholars have advanced new theories that would place strict limits on government’s ability to grant religious exemptions that result in harm (or externalities) to third parties who do not benefit from that religious practice. This program will explore the historical, theoretical, normative, and doctrinal arguments for and against a rule that would prohibit religious exemptions that result in more than de minimis harm to identifiable third parties.

 

8:30-10:15 Building Bridges with Shared Experiences: The Women in Legal Education Oral History Project. Business meeting will be held at the end of the session. 

For the past four to five years, a small group of Women in Legal Education Section Members, led by Professor Marie Failinger (Mitchell Hamline School of Law), have been recording oral histories of the women in the legal academy. The Oral History Project’s goal is to gather the stories of as many women in the academy as possible to develop a robust library of histories that can be used for research, study, or enjoyment. More than 40 women have been interviewed as of January 2018. In this session, panelists will explain the Oral History Project and share thoughts, reactions, and experiences, as we show clips from the Oral History Project about decisions that led women into the legal academy, often at a time where there were few women on law faculties.

 

9:00am to 12:15pm  AALS Socioeconomics Panel, co-sponsored by WILE Section, Gender, Race and Competition in the New Economy   

Anti-discrimination law took hold during an era in which “good jobs” involved “narrow portals of entry” into secure career ladders. The predominant economic theory of discrimination at the time suggested that different treatment involved employment and consumer “tastes” or dislike of other groups. Today’s economy has dismantled the secure employment and predictable career ladders of mid-century America. In the process, inequality has grown, and the dominance of white (and in some cases Asian) men has increased in the upper reaches of the economy. Indeed, while the gendered wage gap has narrowed overall, the gap has increased for college graduates since the early nineties. This panel will consider how to understand the redefinition of “good jobs” in a networked economy, the new remade terms of competition among employees, and the implications for gender and racial diversity.

The socioeconomics section will start at 9 with a brief intro.  We will get underway at 9:15 and run until  12:15, with two panels and a break in between..

The first panel will run from 9:15 to 10:40. That session will focus more on the corporate side of the topic and will address proposals for employee ownership, the importance of big data, and the relationship between diversity and corporate governance. The panelists will be: Lisa Fairfax, Josephine Nelson, Frank Pasquale, and Steve Ramirez.  

 

The second panel will address the relationships between the corporate developments and employment discrimination law and the question of whether employment discrimination is -- or should be -- designed to deal with these developments. This panel will begin at 10:50 and run until 12:15. The panelists will be: Naomi Cahn, June Carbone, Jessica Clarke, and Mike Selmi.

 

10:30 am - 12:15 pm AALS Discussion Group, Building Bridges Across Curricular and Status Lines: Gender Inequity throughout the Legal Academy

The goal of the program is to highlight persistent issues of gender inequity in the legal academy that disadvantage all women faculty and students, particularly those of color. In keeping with the conference theme of Building Bridges, panelists are representative of various ABA-categorized faculty, including traditional tenured faculty employed under ABA Standard 405(b), clinical faculty employed under ABA Standard (405(c)), and legal writing faculty subject to ABA Standard 405(d), as well as faculty holding administrative positions. Discussion participants hope to share common experiences and begin a conversation that will continue well beyond the Annual Meeting. Planned areas for discussion include gender inequities inherent in legal scholarship, institutional labor and leadership, perceptions and expectations applicable to female faculty, and hierarchies related to security of position.

Discussion Group Participant: Sahar Aziz, Rutgers Law School 

Discussion Group Participant: Mary Bowman, Seattle University School of Law 
Discussion Group Participant: Leslie P. Culver, California Western School of Law 
Discussion Group Participant: Meera Deo, Law School Survey of Student Engagement 
Discussion Group Participant: Darby Dickerson, The John Marshall Law School 
Discussion Group Participant: Susan Hanley Duncan, University of Mississippi School of Law 
Discussion Group Participant: Mary A. Lynch, Albany Law School 
Discussion Group Participant: Ann C. McGinley, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law 
Discussion Group Participant: Deborah J. Merritt, The Ohio State University, Michael E. Moritz College of Law 
Discussion Group Participant: Angela I. Onwuachi-Willig, University of California, Berkeley School of Law 
Discussion Group Participant: Alicia E. Plerhoples, Georgetown University Law Center 
Discussion Group Moderator: Kristen Konrad Tiscione, Georgetown University Law Center 
Discussion Group Moderator: Melissa H. Weresh, Drake University Law School 

 

10:30 am - 12:15 pm Criminal Justice, Rape and Sexual Assault in the Era of #MeToo

In 2015, the American Law Institute (ALI) sought to redefine the Model Penal Code’s definition of rape. To date, ALI’s membership has failed to reach consensus. They are not alone in struggling to define the crime of rape. State and federal actors have struggled with questions of how to define rape and how (or even whether) to construct processes around the crime. This panel considers these efforts in the era of the #MeToo movement, which has highlighted the prevalence of workplace sexual harassment, sexual assault, and attitudes that condone and promulgate this behavior. While not all of the behavior #MeToo addresses falls within proposed definitions of rape, the larger social norms the movement challenges nonetheless influence how criminal law defines the crime of rape. This panel will consider how #MeToo has changed the questions that legislators, police officers, practitioners, and scholars ask when considering the crime of rape.

Speaker: Bennett Capers, Brooklyn Law School 

Moderator: Jenny E. Carroll, Hugh F. Culverhouse Jr. School of Law at The University of Alabama

Speaker: Erin Collins, The University of Richmond School of Law

Speaker: Cynthia M. Godsoe, Brooklyn Law School

Speaker: Aya Gruber, University of Colorado Law School
 
Speaker: Corey Rayburn Yung, University of Kansas School of Law 

 

12:15-1:30 Women in Legal Education Luncheon and Presentation of the 2019 Ruth Bader Ginsburg Lifetime Achievement Award to Chancellor Phoebe Haddon. This is a ticketed event; please purchase your ticket in advance.

 

1:30-3:15 Hot Topic Program: Civil Rights in the Aftermath of the Kavanaugh Hearings and Confirmation. 

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s September 27, 2018 hearing concerning Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's allegations that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh committed assault upon her person proved a watershed political and jurisprudential moment. We have now learned of Justice Kavanaugh’s positions on reproductive freedoms, immigrant rights, presidential power, and female testimonial credibility, which may well transform the protections afforded by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses and the Civil Rights Act. Furthermore, his performance at the September 27 hearing triggers issues about judicial temperament, ethics, and even the judge’s role as a creator of legal and social truth. 

 

In this Hot Topic Panel, legal scholars will address the ways in which Justice Kavanaugh’s nomination, hearings, and confirmation impact a wide variety of legal domains, including sexual harassment and assault laws, workplace equality, policing, substantive and criminal law, administrative law, the field of judicial ethics, and the standards of proof appropriate for criminal, legal, and political processes. We will also engage the ways in which Justice Kavanaugh’s role in today's political and legal climate intersects with jurisprudence, such as critical legal feminism and the moral theory of epistemic injustice. 

 

1:30-3:15 Co-Sponsoring with the Section on Aging and the Law: The Legal Consequences of Living a Long Life: The Differential Impact on Marginalized Communities. 

Thanks to advances in healthcare, people are living longer. Longevity has legal consequences. People can outlive their family, friends, and finances. Longevity has differing impacts on women, people of color, low-income people, and LGBT individuals. Statistically, women make less money than men and they live longer than men. People of color are less financially secure than most Americans. In the United States, approximately 80 percent of long-term care for older people is provided by family members, such as spouses, children, and other relatives. This places an undue financial burden on families and on low-income persons. LGBT individuals may face conscious and unconscious discrimination when seeking long-term care and other assistance, and they have had historically formed different family structures. This panel will explore the intersection of the legal system and longevity, examining systems that are in place or should be in place to help people plan for living longer.

Speaker: Ms. Donohon Abdugafurova, Emory University Islamic Civilizations Studies 

Speaker: Anne L. Alstott, Yale Law School 
Speaker: Jalila Jefferson-Bullock, Duquesne University School of Law 
Moderator: Browne C. Lewis, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law at Cleveland State University 
Speaker: Beverly I. Moran, Vanderbilt University Law School 
Speaker: Nancy E. Shurtz, University of Oregon School of Law 
Speaker: Jessica Dixon Weaver, Southern Methodist University, Dedman School of Law 

 

Saturday, January 5

 

10:30 am - 12:15 pm AALS Program, #MeToo - The Courts, The Academy and Law Firms

In the wake of the #MeToo movement, courts, law firms, and the academy are taking a serious look at how they address workplace conduct, including bullying and sexual harassment. Law firms are improving their practices for addressing the complex issues surrounding harassment. The federal judiciary is revising its ethics codes, stepping up training, and revamping its procedures for investigating complaints. Law schools are engaging with their students on this issue like never before. The key challenges remain the significant power disparities and the chilling effect of reporting. Law schools are in a unique position to serve as a bridge between students and the greater legal community to help reduce these risks. This panel will discuss practical and novel ways that law schools can partner with the courts and the legal community to address these issues. This discussion will also include the important voice of someone who has experienced sexual harassment.

Speaker: Ms. Hilarie Bass, American Bar Association 

Speaker: Ms. Marguerite Gilles, Yale Law School 

Speaker: Gillian L. Lester, Columbia Law School 
 
Speaker: The Honorable M. Margaret McKeown, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 
 
Moderator: Michael H. Schwartz, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law 
 
Speaker: Ms. Nicole VanderDoes, 

 

 

 

1:30-3:15 Building Bridges: WiLE Networking, Mentoring, and Discussion. 

 

This is a reboot of our Speed Mentoring session. This session will give us an opportunity to have focused discussion as well as more informal discussion about topics that impact all of us and our students and colleagues. The primary discussion topics grew out of the discussion on our Section's Listserv this past fall in the wake of the Kavanaugh hearings. We have four primary goals for this session:  

  1. To address the meaning of the hearings for session participants in their roles as legal academics, lawyers, citizens, and for some, survivors of harassment or assault; 
  2. To reveal challenges the participants faced in occupying those roles and charting a path forward; 
  3. To mentor one another by sharing strategies that enabled the participants to cope with the challenges posed; and 
  4. To provide a forum to network and form alliances in the wake of an event in American political history, which galvanized the country and the legal academy.

 

Sunday, January 6

 

8:30 am - 10:15 am Evidence, Problems of Proof: #MeToo and 'Who Me?'

The #MeToo movement has galvanized women and women's groups to call out, respond to, and challenge pervasive sexual harassment in workplaces as varied as Uber, Hollywood, and Congress. Charges, as well as civil lawsuits are being filed. But what will happen if and when these cases go to trial? Sexual harassment cases are notoriously "he said, she said," situations subject to the interpretations of the "reasonable" or "objective" person, and social standards and mores about what does and does not cross the line. Recent backlash against what constitutes harassment blurs the lines between actionable wrongs, poor judgment, and bad manners. This panel will examine the evidentiary basis for sexual harassment claims, the problems of proof with credibility issues, the evidentiary standards of civil and criminal cases, and the challenges and opportunities for litigants in the courtroom.

Speaker: Mr. Charles Gibbs, McMonagle Perri McHugh Mischak Davis 

Speaker: Christine Chambers Goodman, Pepperdine University School of Law 
Speaker: Aya Gruber, University of Colorado Law School 
Speaker: Catharine A. MacKinnon, The University of Michigan Law School 
Speaker: Ms. Sandra C. Munoz, Law Offices of Sandra C. Munoz 
Speaker from a Call for Papers: Julia Simon-Kerr, University of Connecticut School of Law 
Speaker: Deborah Tuerkheimer, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law 
Speaker: Maggie Wittlin, University of Nebraska College of Law 
 
10:30 am - 12:15 pm -Soci0-Economics Co-Sponsored by Minority Groups Race, Gender, and Socio-Economic Justice
 
This session explores the goals of greater minority and gender justice and empowerment and their relationship to socio-economic methodology. Socio-economic methodology recognizes that systemic race and gender injustice and the goals of minority and gender empowerment cannot be adequately understood or addressed by a legal analysis limited to the narrow neoclassical approach to law and economics. Would the aforementioned goals be substantially aided if the socio-economic methodology were to become the dominant academic approach to law-related economic issues? The panelists and audience will be invited to share their views.
 
Speaker: Deleso A. Alford, Southern University Law Center 
Speaker: Deborah N. Archer, New York University School of Law 
Moderator and Speaker: Robert Ashford, Syracuse University College of Law 
Speaker: William K. Black, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law 
Speaker: June Rose Carbone, University of Minnesota Law School 
Speaker: Martha Albertson Fineman, Emory University School of Law 
Speaker: Philip L. Harvey, Rutgers Law School 
Speaker: Tayyab Mahmud, Seattle University School of Law 

January 3, 2019 in Conferences, Law schools | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, November 5, 2018

Implicit Bias in the Law School Dean Search Process

Michelle Benedetto Neitz, Pulling Back the Curtain: Implicit Bias in the Law School Dean Search Process, Seton Hall L. Rev. (forthcoming) 

The dean search process can be viewed as a bellwether for the health of a law school. Within the microcosm of a civilized “dean search committee” can lie the tensions of rival factions attempting to impose their visions for the next chapter of the law school enterprise. If law school revenue is down, the factions may be fighting for their own survival.

Not surprisingly, therefore, the dean search process is a lightning rod for the stresses facing law school faculty and staff and university administrators. As a result, the implicit biases of individuals and institutions can play a major (if unseen) role in the selection of a dean. Despite the regularity of dean searches in American law schools, no scholar to date has fully examined the ramifications of implicit bias in the dean search process.

This article stems from my experience chairing multiple dean searches and my research interest in the causes and effects of implicit bias. Part II reviews the role of a law school dean, with special consideration of the ways the Great Recession and its effects transformed the role of the dean. Part III describes the typical dean search process and evaluates dean diversity statistics to determine which candidates are selected for these powerful roles in today’s law schools. Part IV introduces the concept of implicit bias, specifically focusing on in-group favoritism. Part IV also analyzes the ways implicit biases can manifest in the dean search process, focusing on racial, gender, socioeconomic, and sexual orientation biases. Finally, Part V suggests recommendations to minimize implicit bias on the part of dean search committees, and offers new and creative ways to change the traditional dean search process.

November 5, 2018 in Equal Employment, Law schools | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, October 9, 2018

Lawsuits Against Harvard and NYU Law Reviews Allege Illegal Racial and Gender Preferences for Editors and Articles Harm White Men

Suits Against Harvard and NYU Law Reviews Claim Racial Gender Preferences

A Texas-based group called Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences (FASORP) sued the Harvard Law Review on Oct. 6 and the New York University Law Review on Sunday, claiming that their racial and gender preference policies violate federal anti-discrimination laws. The lawsuits come at a time when law reviews—the traditional bastion of white males—are celebrating the increased diversity of their membership ranks. Harvard Law School, for example, had its first black women editor-in-chief in 2017. The Columbia Law Review has its first black male editor-in-chief ever this year.***

 

The new suits allege that policies at both law reviews violate the rights of students by giving women and minorities an unlawful advantage in getting onto those sought-after organizations. Moreover, the suits allege policies that give a preference to articles written by women and minority scholars violate the rights of others hoping to place articles there.

 

“Harvard Law School and Harvard University are violating Title VI and Title IX by allowing the Harvard Law Review to use race and sex preferences when selecting its members, editors, and articles—in direct contravention of the Law School’s supposed non-discrimination policy,” read the Harvard Law Review suit.

October 9, 2018 in Education, Gender, Law schools, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, August 29, 2018

CFP Feminist Legal Theory Collaborative Research Network at Law & Society

Call for Papers:  Sunday September 16 Deadline 

The Feminist Legal Theory
Collaborative Research Network
 

Seeks submissions for the  

Law and Society Association Annual Meeting 

May 30 – June 2, 2019 in Washington, D.C., USA

Dear friends and colleagues,  

We invite your participation in the panels organized and sponsored by the Feminist Legal Theory Collaborative Research Network (FLT-CRN) at the Law and Society Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C. May 30 – June 2, 2019.  The Feminist Legal Theory CRN brings together 
law and society scholars across a range of fields who share an interest in feminist legal theory.  Information about the Law and Society meeting is available at http://www.lawandsociety.org.  We seek proposals that explore feminist legal theory across any substantive area. 

If you would like to present a paper as part of a CRN panel, submit your 500 word abstract here by the deadline of Sunday, September 16, 2018.  

 

You must also sign up to join the FLT-CRN Slack page by September 16, 2018 (information on Slack is included at the end of this letter).  We are migrating from TWEN to Slack, which is a user-friendly and free platform that will allow those in our community who do not have access to TWEN to participate. 

 

Our goal is to stimulate focused discussion of papers on which scholars are currently working.  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.  We are also interested in hearing from junior scholars, and welcome submissions from scholars in VAPs, fellowship programs, non-tenure and pre-tenure positions.  Furthermore, because the LSA meeting attracts scholars from other disciplines, we welcome multidisciplinary proposals. 

The Planning Committee will group accepted papers into panels of four, based on subject 

matter.  Each invited presenter will commit to presenting for no more than 10 minutes to allow ample time for discussion consistent with the FLT-CRN norms and expectations.  A chair or discussant will provide feedback on each paper.  If you would like to propose a pre-formed panel of four papers with a chair, please message us on Slack or email fltcrn2019@gmail.com.

In addition to traditional panels, we are open to some of the other formats that the LSA allows; including Author meets Reader, Salon, or Roundtable. If you have an idea that you think would work well in one of these formats, please email us at the addresses above.  Please note that for roundtables, organizers must 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, either as a paper panelist or as a roundtable participant. 

 
As a condition of participating as a Feminist Legal Theory CRN panelist, you must agree to also serve as a discussant or discussant/chair for another Feminist Legal Theory CRN panel.  This requirement helps us to create and sustain a supportive community of scholars.  We will take into account expertise and topic preferences. 

Chairs organize the panel, as well as moderate.  Chairs will develop a 100-250 word description for the session and submit the session proposal to LSA before the anticipated deadline of mid-October.  This will ensure that each panelist can submit their proposal, using the panel number assigned. 

 

Discussants read at least one paper assigned to them and prepare a short commentary to offer feedback and serve as a basis for discussion among the panelist and audience members.   

Proposals are due Sunday, Sept. 16th to https://form.jotform.com/82105470592959.  All Feminist Legal Theory CRN participants must also sign up for Slack by September 16th in order to access information and papers for the conference, even if you are not submitting a proposal (instructions for Slack below).  

 

For proposal submissions, the Jotform requires the following information:  

  • The title of your proposal;
  • A 500 word abstract or summary; 
  • Your name and title;
  • Number of years you have been a law teacher/scholar;
  • Your areas of interest and expertise within feminist legal theory;
  • Whether this paper is part of a group of papers submitted together as a pre- formed panel.  

This information will permit us to organize panels and submit them prior to the LSA’s anticipated deadline in mid-October. 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 your proposal independently to LSA. 

We hope you will join us in Washington, D.C. to share your current scholarship and connect with this vibrant community of feminist legal theorists. 

Warm regards, 

2019 LSA Feminist Legal Theory CRN Planning Committee 

Maya Manian & Jamie Abrams (Co-Chairs); Ayelet Blecher-Prigat; Yael Braudo (Chief Technology Officer); Daniela Kraiem (Washington, D.C. local host liaison); Seema Mohapatra (2018 co-chair liaison); Eylem Umit; Dara Purvis; Jordan Woods

How to sign up for Slack:  


Effective September 16th, we are moving to Slack for all of our CRN communications.  We will no longer use the longstanding TWEN platform after that date.  Slack is a messaging app where we can talk, share files, and work together.  To join our workspace on Slack, please follow this link: https://join.slack.com/t/fltcrn2019/shared_invite/enQtMzk2NjMyNTY5NTU4LWY2ZjgwNGFhY2ZjZWJmMmY1N2M1ZmI0N2JiY2FhZTQ3NmRhNDZiMDE1YmUwN2VhYzlmYWFiMWU3OGY5MTY0OWY

Why are we moving to Slack?

We want to use the best communication tools to make our lives easier and be more productive. Having everything in one place will help us work together better and faster, rather than jumping around between emails, IMs, texts and a bunch of other programs. Everything you share in Slack is automatically indexed and archived, creating a searchable archive of all our work.  This platform is more accessible to scholars throughout the world and at different stages of their careers. 

Here’s what Slack can help us with:

  • Communicating transparently across the CRN 
  • Quicker feedback and better decision making
  • Easy access to information, documents, and files – all papers that are accepted will be available for every CRN member who joins our Slack workspace.
  • After constructing all panels, each panel will have a separate channel in which the panelists and chair will be able to discuss all details, share drafts, etc.

Please register with Slack by September 16th to ensure continuous access to all updates and communications regarding future events and programs. 

August 29, 2018 in Call for Papers, Law schools | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, August 27, 2018

The Most Cited Women in American Legal Scholarship

I really resist rankings and other attempts to impose hierarchy (reflecting some of the broader takeaways from feminist legal theory), but . . . here weighed in favor of recognizing these women for their work.

Jack Balkin, The Most Cited Women in American Legal Scholarship

 

Name

School

Citations

Age in 2018

1

Reva Siegel

Yale University

1340

62

2

Michelle Alexander

Union Theological Seminary

1030

50

3

Judith Resnik

Yale University

1000

68

4

Deborah Rhode

Stanford University

980

66

5

Martha Nussbaum

University of Chicago

930

71

6

Lee Epstein

Washington University, St. Louis

840

60

7

Martha Minow

Harvard University

820

63

8

Jody Freeman

Harvard University

800

54

9

Catharine MacKinnon

University of Michigan

780

71

10

Rachel Barkow

New York University

775

47

11

Kimberle Crenshaw

Columbia University

710

59

12

Pamela Karlan

Stanford University

670

59

13

Oona Hathaway

Yale University

660

45

14

Heather Gerken

Yale University

650

49

15-T

Pamela Samuelson

University of California-Berkeley

640

69

15-T

Rochelle Dreyfuss

New York University

640

71

15-T

Carol Rose

Yale University/Arizona

640

78

18

Jill Fisch

 

University of Pennsylvania

625

58

19

Julie Cohen

Georgetown University

620

54

20-T

Lisa Bressman

Vanderbilt University

615

52

20-T

Gillian Metzger

Columbia University

615

53

22-T

Roberta Romano

Yale University

580

66

22-T

Abbe Gluck

Yale University

580

43

22-T

Dorothy Roberts

University of Pennsylvania

580

62

25

Christine Jolls

Yale University

560

51

26-T

Danielle Keats Citron

University of Maryland

550

49

26-T

Rebecca Tushnet

Harvard University

550

45

28

Carol Steiker

Harvard University

530

60

29-T

Robin West

Georgetown University

520

64

29-T

Elizabeth Scott

Columbia University

520

73

29-T

Martha Fineman

Emory University

520

68

32

Naomi Cahn

George Washington University

500

60

August 27, 2018 in Law schools | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, June 11, 2018

Students Brainstorm How to Change the World on Law & Gender

Melissa Berger, Inspirational Office Art

Each law student was provided with two index cards.  One was entitled ACTION ITEM and the other was entitled TAKE-AWAY. The students were asked to complete the cards in their own handwriting and in their own words. I explained to the students that the cards would be placed onto a poster that would hang in my office. The Action Item was to describe a concrete step forward in the area of Gender Equality that the students hoped we could achieve. I had them tie this action item to their specific research and final paper in the class. If the goal had been achieved by the next time they saw the poster, they could remove the card from the board.  (Cards were taped loosely with decorative metallic tape). The Take-Away item was to describe what each student would take away from the course and hopefully pass forward.

 

Once the cards were completed, I had the students bring the cards to our last class. For this class, I reserved a free conference room in the back of a nearby coffee and bagel shop. My (mostly, but not entirely female) students apparently had named this our “Empowerment Brunch.”

 

I had each law student “present” their cards and tape the cards onto a black poster board. The end result was an inspirational poster board that the students can re-visit whenever they visit their alma mater.

 

Ahead of class, I had explained to the students in an email:  “During this class, we will engage in a BRAINSTORMING SESSION about how to CHANGE THE WORLD. To that end, please bring with you your two INDEX CARDS filled out in advance. Remember the TAKE-AWAY card is what will you take away from this course (perhaps from the readings, the presentations, the classes, other).  What will you take with you for years to come (and perhaps pass forward)? Remember the ACTION ITEM card is based upon the research you conducted this semester – what do you hope we can accomplish specifically?  What is the one action item that could solve or ameliorate your legal dilemma/question?

 

I will make up a poster board with our cards and other graphics and keep it on display in my office.   In future years, when you come visit me—perhaps we will see real progress on some of these action items. After a semester of heavy coursework, let’s stay positive and push this ball forward. We are all relying on YOUR GENERATION to change how the law treats gender going forward.”

 

Some of the students’ Action items would likely actualize in the near future, such as “Get three people a year to watch a women’s sports events.” Others were loftier, but so important to articulate: “I want to dedicate my legal career to public service to help women, transgender and non-gender conforming individuals to gain full equality under the law.”

 

In terms of the Take-Aways, the cards were varied and proved quite moving as well, such as: “The law touches nearly every aspect of women’s lives,” and “Discussion about equality promotes equality.”

 

It was a terrific final class full of motivating conversation and plenty of dreaming. This poster proudly hangs in my office and still inspires me today

June 11, 2018 in Education, Law schools | Permalink | Comments (0)