Wednesday, December 15, 2021

AALS Women in Legal Education Section Programming at 2022 Annual Meeting

From the WILE Newsletter h/t Susan Bisom-Rapp and Victoria Haneman.

WILE ANNUAL MEETING SCHEDULE AT A GLANCE (virtual conference)

◆ Wednesday, January 5, 12:35 - 1:50 pm Eastern: AALS Awards Ceremony (the inaugural Deborah L. Rhode Award will be presented to Professors Stacy Butler and Wendy Greene)

◆ Wednesday, January 5, 2:00 - 3:00 pm Eastern: WILE Networking Session

◆ Wednesday, January 5, 3:10 - 4:25 pm Eastern: Open Source Program on the Impact of Deborah Rhode (planned by Section on WILE, the Section on Professional Responsibility, Section on Pro Bono, Section on Leadership)

◆ Wednesday, January 5, 4:45 pm - 6:00 pm Eastern: WILE Works-in-Progress: Other Voices in Feminist Legal Theory

◆ Thursday, January 6, 12:35 - 1:50 pm Eastern: WILE Primary Program - Equality, Intersectionality, and Status in the Legal Academy

◆ Thursday, January 6, 2:00 - 3:00 pm Eastern: WILE Award Ceremony (the Ruth Bader Ginsburg Lifetime Achievement Award will be presented to LSAC Deputy for Legal and Global Higher Education Camille deJorna)

◆ Friday, January 7, 4:45 - 6:00 pm Eastern: Introducing and Supporting Intersectionality in Pedagogy

 

WILE kicks off the 2022 Annual Meeting at the AALS Awards Ceremony (Wednesday, January 5, 12:35 – 1:50 pm Eastern) during which the inaugural Deborah L. Rhode Award will be presented to Professors Stacy Butler (Arizona) and Wendy Greene (Drexel). The award, created by WILE and the Sections on Leadership, Professional Responsibility, and Pro Bono & Public Service, honors the contributions, service, and leadership of the late Deborah Rhode by recognizing new trailblazers in legal education and the legal profession. Professor Butler is being honored for founding and directing Innovation for Justice (i4J), a social justice-focused innovation lab. Professor Greene is being recognized for her scholarship, activism, and law reform work aimed at prohibiting race-based natural hair discrimination. I am grateful for the hard work of the award selection committee: Interim Dean Douglas Blaze (Tennessee), Professor Renee Knake Jefferson (Houston), Assistant Director Nadine Mompremier (Columbia), and Associate Dean Adrien Wing (Iowa).

Our second event is the WILE Section Networking Session (Wednesday, January 5, 2:00 – 3:00 pm Eastern), which will afford our members a chance to meet and learn in a more informal format. Thanks to WILE Secretary Victoria Haneman (Creighton) and Executive Committee member Milena Sterio (Cleveland-Marshall) for moderating that session. I encourage you all to attend this valuable session.

Following that session will be the Open Source Program – The Impact of Deborah Rhode (Wednesday, January 5, 3:10 – 4:25 pm Eastern) (Co-Sponsored by the Sections on Leadership, Professional Responsibility, Pro Bono & Public Service Opportunities, and WILE). A distinguished panel representing Deborah Rhode’s diverse interests has been assembled to reflect on her legacy and its impact on future projects and initiatives. The panelists are Professor Ben Barton (Tennessee), Dean Garry Jenkins (Minnesota), former Assistant Dean Tom Schoenherr (Fordham), and Associate Dean Adrien Wing (Iowa). Topics include Deborah Rhode’s impact on women and diversity in legal education, legal ethics, the imperative of pro bono within the legal academy and the profession, and leadership. Thanks to Lucy Ricca (Stanford), who is the Policy and Program Director at the Stanford Center on the Legal Profession, for expertly organizing and serving as moderator for the Open Source Program. Chair Elect Lisa Mazzie (Marquette) served on a multi-Section subcommittee, which selected the program’s speakers.

Our fourth program at the Annual Meeting is the WILE Works-in-Progress Session – Other Voices in Feminist Legal Theory (Wednesday, January 5, 4:45 – 6:00 pm Eastern). This program, based on a call for papers, focuses on the views of scholars whose work marks them as feminist legal theorists even if they have not traditionally been labeled as such. The scholars presenting work are: Noa Ben-Asher (Pace), Gender Identity, The New Legal Sex; Kim D. Ricardo (UIC), Comparative Study of Abortion Laws in Argentina and the United States; and Anna Offit (SMU), Benevolent Exclusion. Professor Bridget Crawford (Pace) is our discussant. The session moderator is Dean Lolita Buckner Inniss (Colorado). The session was organized by Dean Inniss (Colorado), Rachel Croskery-Roberts (UCI), Catherine Hardee (California Western), Fernanda Nicola (American), and Nancy Soonpaa (Texas Tech)

The following day, WILE hosts its primary program, Equality, Intersectionality, and Status in the Legal Academy (Thursday, January 6, 12:35 – 1:50 pm Eastern)(Co-Sponsored by the Section on Minority Groups, and the Section on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Issues). Based on a call for papers, this session will explore visible and invisible status distinctions in the legal academy, how people of color and women are affected by them, and whether various solutions can improve equality. Scholars presenting work are Angela Mae Kupenda (Mississippi College), Killing Me Softly with His Song, and Options toward Professing the Truth; Rachel Lopez (Drexel), Untitled: The Power of Designation in the Legal Academy; Shefali Milczarek-Desai & Sylvia Lett (Arizona), Flipping the Script: Two BIPOC Law Professors Embrace and Enunciate Difference to Further Equality in the Legal Academy; and Melissa Weresh (Drake), Hierarchy Maintained: Gender Inequity in the Legal Academy. As WILE Section Chair, Susan Bison-Rapp will moderate the session. The session was organized by WILE Chair Elect Lisa Mazzie (Marquette) along with Executive Committee members Naomi Cahn (Virginia), Rachel Croskery-Roberts (UCI), Rona Kaufman (Duquesne), Ashley London (Duquesne), Linda McClain (Boston), Nancy Soonpaa (Texas Tech), and Milena Sterio (Cleveland-Marshall).

Following immediately after the WILE primary program, the Section will host its Annual Ruth Bader Ginsburg Lifetime Achievement Award Ceremony (Thursday, January 6, 2:00 – 3:00 pm Eastern). Since 2013, WILE has given out a lifetime achievement award to an individual who has impacted women, the legal community, the academy, and the issues that affect women through mentoring, writing, speaking, activism, and providing opportunities to others. Our 2022 recipient is Camille deJorna, who serves as Deputy for Legal and Global Higher Education at the Law School Admissions Council (LSAC). Before that post, she served in a top role in the ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar and oversaw the admissions and student affairs offices at several law schools, including Columbia, Hofstra, and the University of Iowa. She was selected by the WILE Executive Committee for her pathbreaking work on diversity and inclusion in the legal academy and profession. Special thanks to Dean Lolita Buckner Inniss (Colorado) for managing the nomination process and to Dean Tamara Lawson (St. Thomas) for providing the beautiful plaque for the occasion.


The Section’s seventh and final program is a session on pedagogy titled Introducing and Supporting Intersectionality in Pedagogy (Friday, January 7, 4:45 – 6:00 pm Eastern). Discussions related to gender, race, class, sexual orientation, age, immigration, and/or disability visibly shape the law and richly impact classroom outcomes. The goal of this session is to consider new pedagogical tools and ideas both for incorporating intersectional feminism into the law school classroom, and for exploring these ideas with faculty colleagues who may be resistant. Speakers include Jamie Abrams (Louisville), Bridget
Crawford (Pace), Teri McMurtry-Chubb (John Marshall), and Kathryn Stanchi (UNLV). Serving as commentators are Dean Angela Onwuachi-Willig (Boston) and Dean Sean Scott (California Western). WILE Secretary Victoria Haneman (Creighton) will moderate. Assisting Victoria Haneman (Creighton) in organizing the session were Executive Committee members Jill Engle (Penn State Law), Catherine Hardee (California Western), Fernanda Nicola (American), and Kerri Stone (Florida International).

 

December 15, 2021 in Conferences, Education, Law schools, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, October 25, 2021

Using Videos to Boost Your Scholarly Impact

As blog readers consider how to boost their scholarly impact, check out Academia.edu's video upload feature added in January 2021. It is an intriguing tool. Here is one example of this feature in action posted on Academia.edu by Hilary Parsons Dick sharing a video presentation of her scholarly talk.  Here is the written summary of her particular project too, which is of substantive relevance to readers too: 

Since the early twentieth century, US immigration policy regimes have created a discriminatory ontology of migration that conflates the legal category of the “illegal alien” and a cultural image of Mexican and Central American migrants as dangerous, criminal Others. The production of this ontology is rooted in a highly racialized process of gendering that reinscribes long-standing white supremacist views of “dangerous brown men” and “submissive brown women.” I explore these processes through an investigation of the massive regulatory changes the Trump administration made to the US asylum system, which have disproportionately affected women and children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. I focus on a precedential ruling by Trump's Attorney General Jeff Sessions on an asylum case called the Matter of AB. I argue that Sessions deploys a semiotics of individuation to construct violence against women as a private matter that does not warrant asylum protections.

Here are instructions on how to post videos on Academia.edu

October 25, 2021 in Conferences, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, October 12, 2021

Unequal Profession, Unleashed

Unequal Profession, Unleashed

By: Meera Deo

Published in: Rutgers Law Review, Vol. 73, No. 3, 2021

This Essay initiates the Rutgers Law Review symposium, "Taking Our Space: Women of Color and Antiracism in Legal Academia," a collection of essays inspired by my book, Unequal Profession: Race and Gender in Legal Academia (Stanford University Press, 2019). After briefly tracing the origins of the book project, I focus on five themes that outline responses as well as updates to Unequal Profession: (1) claiming my worth; (2) jumping on the bandwagon; (3) centering structural solutions; (4) being part of the solution—not the solution; and (5) understanding pandemic effects on legal academia. Together, these themes reveal the depth and difficulty of the work that the legal academy must take on in order to move our profession closer to equity.

The five themes presented here are insights I have gleaned along the way since Unequal Profession was published. Just as a qualitative researcher draws out patterns and observations from the data, I have performed some preliminary analyses on two-plus years’ worth of responses to Unequal Profession, as well as crafted a brief update on how various events of this past unfathomable year exacerbate raceXgender biases in legal academia. I share these observations so that aspiring authors, current academics, allies in practice, and administrative leaders can work together with me to craft a more equal profession. As the five themes outlined here demonstrate, achieving a more equal profession involves working not only to address naysayers, whose implicit and explicit biases may reinforce inequities, but also for each one of us to critically reflect on our own individual prejudices and opportunities for improvement.

October 12, 2021 in Books, Education, Gender, Law schools, Race, Scholarship, Workplace | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, October 6, 2021

CFP Feminist Legal Theory Network at Law and Society Annual Meeting

SUBMISSION LINK UPDATED (10/27): 1feministlegaltheory@gmail.com 

 

The Feminist Legal Theory Collaborative Research Network of the Law and Society Association
Global Meeting on Law & Society, Lisbon, Portugal & Virtual, July 13-16, 2022

Call for Papers – Friday, October 29 Deadline

Dear friends and colleagues,

We write to invite you to participate in panels sponsored by the Feminist Legal Theory Collaborative Research Network (FLT CRN) at the LSA-sponsored Global Meeting on Law & Society, July 13-16, 2022. Information about the conference (including registration and planning your visit) is at: https://www.lawandsociety.org/lisbon-2022-homepage.  Please note that the meeting is going to be held later than usual.

The theme for the Global Meeting is Rage, Reckoning, & Remedy. Feminist legal theory should and does have a lot to say about all three topics and the urgency with which we confront them now – globally but amidst vast and escalating inequality and a crisis of rising hate, fascism, and illiberal policies across the globe.

In this context, we are especially interested in papers that bring a critical feminist lens to their topics and that embrace the international character of the conference. Such papers will address the intersectional, gendered aspects of their subjects.
The following non-exhaustive list is intended to provide examples of topic areas, and not to limit scholarly and creative engagement of feminist legal theory with the conference themes:

● Present-day inequalities caused by unacknowledged and unaddressed (or inadequately addressed) legacies of slavery and colonialism.
● Consequences of neoliberal economic and social policies amidst (so-called) globalization.
● World health and environmental crises such as HIV/AIDS, Covid 19, climate change, and military, police, and other pervasive violence against marginalized people and communities around the globe.
● Critiques of international law and human rights approaches and institutions.
● Rule of law, access to justice, and legal empowerment issues and approaches.
● Inequalities related to reproduction and reproductive technologies.
● Perspectives on exploitation and resistance movements.
● Transnational/International/Comparative feminist critiques of any topic.

We especially welcome proposals that would permit us to collaborate with other CRNs and that are (give the multidisciplinary character of LSA) multidisciplinary in approach. We strongly encourage colleagues from the Global South and indigenous colleagues to submit proposals.

Our goal is to stimulate focused discussion of papers on which scholars are currently working. Thus, while proposals may reference work that is well on the way to publication, we are particularly eager to solicit proposals for works-in-progress that are at an earlier stage and will benefit from the discussion that the panels will provide.

SUBMISSION TYPES
Per the LSA guidelines, there are several types of submissions:
1. Individual papers
2. Paper Sessions: Panels that are formed around a single theme. These consist of 4-5 paper presenters, 1 Chair and 1 Discussant (who can be the same person), and last 1 hour and 45 minutes.
3. Roundtables: These may be formed around a topic and consist of 4-8 participants, 1 Chair, and last 1 hour and 45 minutes.
4. Author Meets Reader (AMR): These are for scholarly books published in 2021. For more information, please see https://www.lawandsociety.org/author-meets-reader-newbooks- in-the-field/

LSA also encourages submission of other “creative” formats for this conference. If you have an idea that you think would work well in one of these formats, please let us know.


CRN PRIORITIES FOR THIS CONFERENCE
Individual paper submissions. The CRN gives preference this year to individual submissions. A committee of the CRN will assign individual papers to panels based on the subject. Our panels will use the conference format, which requires four papers, but we will continue our custom of assigning a chair for the panel and a commentator for each individual paper. As a condition of participating as a panelist, you must also agree to serve as a chair or commentator for another panel or participant. We will of course take into account your scheduling and topic preferences to the degree possible.

Pre-formed group submissions. Although we prefer individual paper submissions, we will consider pre-formed panels, roundtables, AMR sessions, and other group submissions that meet the following guidelines:
1. The presenters have not presented together at LSA before.
2. Junior colleagues are included.
3. A diversity of institutions are represented.
4. Interdisciplinary and international perspectives are included.


If you are already planning a conference session with at least four panelists and papers that you would like to see included in the Feminist Legal Theory CRN, please let the organizers know.

The duties of a chair are to organize the panel logistically, including registering it online with the LSA and moderating the panel. The chair will develop a 100–250-word description for the session and submit the session proposal to LSA before their upcoming deadline on November 10, 2021, so that each panelist can submit his or her proposal using the panel number assigned. Chairs will also be responsible for assigning commentators but may wait to do so until panels have been scheduled later this winter.

The duties of a commentator are to read a minimum of two papers and provide verbal comments as well as brief written (email is fine) comments.

SUBMISSION PROCESS AND GUIDELINES
Individual Papers: Please email your abstract, up to three key terms (e.g., International law, violence against women, criminal law), and whether you will be virtual to 1femnistlegaltheory@gmail.com with the Email Subject: Individual Paper Last Name.

Panels and Roundtables: Please email your abstract and up to three key terms (e.g., International law, violence against women, criminal law) and all proposal members, identifying chair and discussant and whether any member will be virtual to
1femnistlegaltheory@gmail.com with the Email Subject: Panel Proposal or Roundtable Proposal Last Name.

Author Meets Reader Panels: Please email your book title and all panel members, identify chair and, whether any panelist will be virtual to 1femnistlegaltheory@gmail.com with the Email Subject: AMR Proposal Last Name.

Please remember that group proposals that are repeated from previous years, that are composed of scholars from a single institution, that contain no junior scholars and other forms of diversity may be rejected.

Be sure to first carefully read the LSA guidelines for submission formats here:
https://www.lawandsociety.org/types-of-submissions/. Please note that LSA rules limit you to participating only once as a paper panelist or roundtable participant.

Please submit all proposals by Friday, October 29. This will permit us to organize papers into panels (and potentially other formats) and submit them prior to the LSA’s deadline on November 10. If we are unable to accept your proposal for the CRN, we will notify you by early November so that you can submit an independent proposal to the conference.

QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
Please send any questions or comments to the CRN email address: 1femnistlegaltheory@gmail.com. Please do not send questions or submissions to individual committee members or in response to this email.

We look forward to the conference and hope you’ll join us in Lisbon or virtually to discuss our scholarship and connect with others doing work on feminist legal theory.


Best,
LSA Planning Committee
Cyra Akila Choudhury (co-chair)
Elizabeth MacDowell (co-chair)
April Cherry
Laura Kessler
Anibal Rosario-Lebron
Sheila Velez Martin
Ezgi Şerif

October 6, 2021 in Call for Papers, Conferences, International, Scholarship, Theory | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, May 27, 2021

Book Review: The Imperatives of Supporting New Scholarly Voices

Jamie Abrams, The Imperatives of Supporting New Scholarly Voices, 69 Journal of Legal Education No. 3 (2020).

The Legal Scholar’s Guidebook is dedicated “to all the voices longing to be heard,” previewing for readers the important values that the book champions of inviting more scholars to the table. The book is grounded in values of inclusivity and accessibility. It describes the analytic paradigms and organizational frameworks that govern traditional legal scholarship. The book implicitly reveals to readers something of a tension between conformity and inclusion. How do supervisors and mentors cultivate the development of new scholarly voices, particularly marginalized voices, within a context of reverent conformity to existing paradigms, methods, and schemas? In teaching scholarly writing, is the reverence and conformity to existing scholarship lifting up voices longing to be heard or is it conforming the voices longing to be heard with the dominant voices already being heard?

The Legal Scholar’s Guidebook is savvy in its quest to help the voices longing to be heard, and in its efforts to help address the self-doubts that nag so many scholars. It introduces important concepts of inclusion and imposter syndrome, boldly addressing them head-on, which is worthy of great gratitude. It embeds guidance throughout each chapter to “squelch the imposter voice” that can compromise the production of scholarship. The solution to the “imposter syndrome” though may not be more instruction. Mentors can reinforce the problem if those mentors share a different pedigree, background, resume from the scholar or if those mentors are confused or conflated with supervisors.

The Legal Scholar’s Guidebook, when read during a global pandemic and amid a crescendo of calls for racial justice in our communities, calls for our self-reflection as a community of scholars. Conquering imposter syndrome requires a strong sense of authenticity and belonging. This requires an alignment between one’s authentic values and identity and acceptance in a setting, institution, or task. For readers of this book in modern political, economic, and social times, it might be a springboard to deeper conversations about the chasms between the communities that feel like they belong in legal scholarship and those that do not. It might call for us all to strengthen the intentionality of our mentoring of students of color, nontraditional students, LGBTQ students, and women students. There has never been a better moment for us all to revisit how we produce and define “good” scholarship, the breadth of the scholarly voices we reproduce and consume, and the entrenched assumptions and hierarchies that shape our scholarly practices. In that sense, this guidebook might guide us all to a more inclusive and inviting place uplifting new scholarly voices.

May 27, 2021 in Books, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, May 25, 2021

Feminist Legal Theory Sessions at Law & Society Meeting this Week

This week at the Law & Society Association annual meeting (by Zoom), the Feminist Legal Theory Collaborative Research Network will offer 26 sessions from May 26 to May 30.

Here is a listing and description of the FLT Program.

Download FLT-CRN events at LSA 2021

For more information about the rest of the Law & Society program, see Law & Society Conference 2021

May 25, 2021 in Conferences, Scholarship, Theory | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, December 1, 2020

New Book: Women and the Law (2020), Annual Edition of Selected Greatest Hits in Legal Scholarship on Women's Rights

I've just published the 2020 edition of Women and the Law (Thomson Reuters).  It is an annual edition of selected works on women and the law likely to be of interest to practitioners in the field.  Kind of a "greatest hits" if you will of the legal scholarship from the prior year.

Here is this year's Table of Contents:

Part A Special Issue: The Nineteenth Amendment

Chapter 1 More Than the Vote: The Nineteenth Amendment as Proxy for Gender Equality, Tracy A. Thomas

Chapter 2 The Nineteenth Amendment and the Democratization of the Family, Reva B. Siegel

Chapter 3 The Constitutional Development of the Nineteenth Amendment In the Decade Following Ratification, Paula A. Monopoli

Chapter 4 Thin and Thick Conceptions of the Nineteenth Amendment Right To Vote and Congress's Power To Enforce It, Richard Hasen and Leah M. Litman

Chapter 5 The “Welfare Queen” Goes to the Polls: Race Based Fractures in Gender Politics and Opportunities for Intersectional Coalitions, Catherine Powell and Camille Gear Rich

Part B Women in the Workplace

Chapter 6 Sexual Harassment Litigation with a Dose of Reality, Diane P. Wood

Chapter 7 What's Reasonable Now? Sexual Harassment Law After the Norm Cascade, Joan C. Williams, Jodi Short, Margot Brooks, Hilary Hardcastle, Tiffanie Ellis, and Rayna Saron

Chapter 8 Beyond the Bad Apple—Transforming the American Workplace for Women After #MeToo, Claudia Flores

Chapter 9 Knowledge Pays: Reversing Information Flows and the Future of Pay Equity, Orly Lobel

Part C Reproductive Rights

Chapter 10 The Continued Rise of the Reproductive Justice Lawyer, Leigh Creighton Bond and Monika Taliaferro

Chapter 11 Contracting Pregnancy, Rachel Rebouché

Part D Feminism and the Family 

Chapter 12 Unsexing Pregnancy, David Fontana and Naomi Schoenbaum

Chapter 13 Settling in the Shadow of Sex: Gender Bias in Marital Asset Division, Jennifer Bennett Shinall

Part E Violence Against Women

Chapter 14 Straight Outta SCOTUS: Domestic Violence, True Threats, and Free Speech, Jessica Miles

Chapter 15 Retraumatized in Court, Negar Katirai

Chapter 16 #MeToo and Mass Incarceration, Aya Gruber

Part F Theory

Chapter 17 Sex in Public, Elizabeth Sepper and Deborah Dinner

Chapter 18 Leveling Down Gender Equality, Tracy A. Thomas

Chapter 19 Engendering Trust, Deborah S. Gordon

Chapter 20 The Body Politic: Federalism as Feminism in Health Reform, Elizabeth Y. McCuskey

December 1, 2020 in Books, Gender, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, August 4, 2020

Bibliography: Gender and Law Scholarship in Japan

Mark Levin & Kallista Hiraoka, Gender and Law Scholarship in the Law in Japan Field: A Comprehensive Bibliographic Study, 21 Asia-Pacific Law & Policy J. 1 (2020)

This bibliography, inspired by a 1990 journal article by Professor Veronica Taylor titled, Teaching about Law and Society in Japan: Does Gender Matter?, 10 JAPANESE STUD. 47 (1990), and Professor Vera Mackie’s commanding body of work in this field of study [N.1], aims to offer a tool for students and researchers interested in issues relating to gender and law in Japan. We started this bibliography by compiling and snowballing from sources in Levin’s office collection and a variety of title word searches in legal journal databases. We shared our findings first to a select list of scholars who kindly shared feedback and advised us of missing items, and secondly, on SSRN, which also allowed us to obtain additional input. The bibliography contains more than 150 publications including monographs, book chapters, textbook materials, and journal articles from 1962 to 2019.

 

N.1 Vera Mackie, Equal Opportunity in an Unequal Labour Market: The Japanese Situation, 4 AUSTL. FEMINIST STUD. 97 (1989); Vera Mackie, Equal Opportunity and Gender Identity: Feminist Encounters with Modernity and Postmodernity in Japan, in JAPANESE ENCOUNTERS WITH POSTMODERNITY 95 (Jóhann Páll Árnason & Yoshio Sugimoto eds., 1995); VERA MACKIE, FEMINISM IN MODERN JAPAN: CITIZENSHIP,
EMBODIMENT AND SEXUALITY (2003).

August 4, 2020 in International, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (1)

Wednesday, June 24, 2020

Study Documents Disparity in Research Productivity during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Ruomeng Cui, Hao Ding & Feng Zhu, Gender Inequality in Research Productivity During the COVID-19 Pandemic" 

We study the disproportionate impact of the lockdown as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak on female and male academics' research productivity in social science. We collect data from the largest open-access preprint repository for social science on 41,858 research preprints in 18 disciplines produced by 76,832 authors across 25 countries in a span of two years. We find that during the 10 weeks after the lockdown in the United States, although the total research productivity increased by 35%, female academics' productivity dropped by 13.9% relative to that of male academics. We also show that several disciplines drive such gender inequality. Finally, we find that this intensified productivity gap is more pronounced for academics in top-ranked universities, and the effect exists in six other countries. 

June 24, 2020 in Gender, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Study Documents Disparity in Research Productivity during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Ruomeng Cui, Hao Ding & Feng Zhu, Gender Inequality in Research Productivity During the COVID-19 Pandemic" 

We study the disproportionate impact of the lockdown as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak on female and male academics' research productivity in social science. We collect data from the largest open-access preprint repository for social science on 41,858 research preprints in 18 disciplines produced by 76,832 authors across 25 countries in a span of two years. We find that during the 10 weeks after the lockdown in the United States, although the total research productivity increased by 35%, female academics' productivity dropped by 13.9% relative to that of male academics. We also show that several disciplines drive such gender inequality. Finally, we find that this intensified productivity gap is more pronounced for academics in top-ranked universities, and the effect exists in six other countries. 

June 24, 2020 in Gender, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Study Documents Disparity in Research Productivity during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Ruomeng Cui, Hao Ding & Feng Zhu, Gender Inequality in Research Productivity During the COVID-19 Pandemic" 

We study the disproportionate impact of the lockdown as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak on female and male academics' research productivity in social science. We collect data from the largest open-access preprint repository for social science on 41,858 research preprints in 18 disciplines produced by 76,832 authors across 25 countries in a span of two years. We find that during the 10 weeks after the lockdown in the United States, although the total research productivity increased by 35%, female academics' productivity dropped by 13.9% relative to that of male academics. We also show that several disciplines drive such gender inequality. Finally, we find that this intensified productivity gap is more pronounced for academics in top-ranked universities, and the effect exists in six other countries. 

June 24, 2020 in Gender, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, May 29, 2020

New Study Shows Gender Impacts Scholarly Influence and Citation in Law

Caroline Osborne & Stephanie Miller, The Scholarly Impact Matrix: An Empirical Study of How Multiple Metrics Create an Informed Story of a Scholar's Work

Does gender impact citation and exposure?

a. Does gender impact citation?

Another important observation is that men are more likely to be in the frequently and significantly cited intervals than women. At the significantly cited level men are fourteen percent, on average, more likely to be cited. At the frequently cited interval men are eight percent, on average, more likely to be cited. This suggests that men have a citation advantage at both frequently and significantly cited intervals. These results are in contrast to another recent study that finds there is no gender citation advantage in legal scholarship. Christopher A. Cotropia and Lee Petherbridge, Gender Disparity in Law Review Citation Rates, 59 WM. & MARY L. REV. 771 (2018) (study exploring gender disparity in scholarly influence).

b. Does Gender impact exposure in an IR or on SSRN?

Gender provides an advantage in exposure to men at the frequently and significantly downloaded intervals with a twelve percent advantage to men in the frequently downloaded interval on SSRN. That advantage evaporates at the significantly downloaded interval on SSRN with men and women enjoying parity. The twelve percent advantage at the frequently downloaded interval is significant when recalling that the frequently downloaded interval is the interval with the greatest number of downloads and thus, arguably, the interval demonstrating the greatest impact. The absence of a difference in downloads between men and women on SSRN at the significantly downloaded interval was the anticipated result. As noted in the discussion on gender and citation, a 2018 study suggests that there is no gender bias in citations to legal scholarship. Id.

May 29, 2020 in Gender, Scholarship, Women lawyers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, May 12, 2020

CFP Summer Feminist Legal Theory Series

SUMMER FEMINIST LEGAL THEORY SERIES

This summer, the U.S. Feminist Judgments Project, together with the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University and the William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, will host a new biweekly Summer Feminist Legal Theory Series. The series is coordinated by Bridget J. Crawford (Pace), Kathy Stanchi (UNLV) and Linda Berger (UNLV). It will meet biweekly online via Zoom on Wednesdays from 2:00pm-3:00 Eastern/11am-12:00pm Pacific, starting May 27, 2020 and running for six sessions.

The Call for Papers opens today and will close on May 20, 2020 at 5pm Eastern/2pm Pacific. If you are interested in presenting in the Summer Feminist Legal Theory Series, please send the following to bcrawford@law.pace.edu, kathryn.stanchi@unlv.edu, and linda.berger@unlv.edu:

  1. Your name, title, and affiliation.
  2. The paper title and an abstract of no more than 1,000 words.
  3. Whether or not you already have a draft of the paper. (We expect to circulate a draft of each paper—at least 10 pages—a week in advance of each talk.)
  4. Whether or not the paper has been accepted for publication.
  5. A list of any of the Wednesday dates that you would not be available to present, or a statement that any Wednesday in that date range would work for you.

Sessions will take place on these dates:

  • May 27, 2020
  • June 10, 2020
  • June 24, 2020
  • July 8, 2020
  • July 22, 2020
  • August 5, 2020

In selecting papers, preference will be given to papers that are in draft form, unpublished and on topics of general interest to a wide range of scholars. Papers can involve any domestic or international issues of interest to feminist scholars. The topics can be theoretical in nature or represent applications of feminist legal theory. Preference will be given to topics of the widest range of interest and applicability. Papers are welcome, but not required, to relate in some way to feminist influences on judicial reasoning and opinion-writing. Speakers will be strongly encouraged to limit their prepared remarks to 20 minutes, to allow ample time for questions and discussion.

Attendees from all parts of the academy with a verified academic email address are welcome to attend any and all sessions, regardless of whether you are selected to present a paper. Preregistration for all participants is required here. All attendees including speakers must register. Attendees need to register only once and then can attend any of the sessions in the summer series.

May 12, 2020 in Call for Papers, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

LSA Announces Prize to Article on the Nordic Model of Criminalizing the Purchase, Rather than the Sale, of Sex

LSA Honorable Mention Prize

Niina Vuolajarvi is a Mellon/ACLS dissertation fellow at the Department of Sociology at Rutgers University, and a visiting PhD student at the Gender and Sexuality Studies Program at Princeton University. Her research focuses on technologies and cultures of governance, migration, sexuality and gender and precarization. Her article “Governing in the Name of Caring—the Nordic Model of Prostitution and its Punitive Consequences for Migrants Who Sell Sex,” examines the Nordic Model, which aims to abolish commercial sex by criminalizing the buying of sexual services while not criminalizing the selling, as the aim is to protect, rather than punish, women. Her article argues that in a situation where the majority of people who sell sex in the region are migrants, the regulation of commercial sex has shifted from prostitution to immigration policies, resulting in a double standard in the governance of national and foreign sellers of sexual services.

 

May 12, 2020 in International, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, May 6, 2020

Women Submitting Less to Academic Journals Should Scare You

Ms., Women Submitting Less to Academic Journals Should Scare You

The New York Times recently published a report on the impacts of COVID-19 on working moms.

 

“I feel like I have five jobs: mom, teacher, C.C.O., house cleaner, chef,” Sarah Joyce Wiley—chief client officer at a Massachusetts health services company—told the New York Times. “My kids also call me ‘Principal mommy’ and the ‘lunch lady.’ It’s exhausting.”

 

It’s not that men aren’t feeling stressed—but in heterosexual relationships, domestic responsibilities, more often than not, tend to fall on the mother.  As Andrea Flynn, director of health equity at the Roosevelt Institute, wrote in a viral op-ed for Ms.:

Three weeks ago, most of us—proud feminists and progressives—would have said we shared the burden of parenting relatively evenly. (I say relatively because research shows that, despite couples feeling they have egalitarian relationships, women still do the lion’s share of domestic labor.)

 

Why then, at times of crisis, do these imbalances emerge? 

 

Because structural sexism is always lurking just below the surface, ready to rear its ugly head and quickly upset any semblance of intra-household gender equity. 

 

The scary thing? The pressure of women to balance everything at home isn’t just going to go away once COVID-19 ends. Women’s careers are at sake. 

 

Recently, the Lily published a report on the impacts of COVID-19 on academia—specifically how it can impact tenure and future opportunities for women and men. 

 

[COVID-19] threatens to derail the careers of women in academia, says Leslie Gonzales, a professor of education administration at Michigan State University, who focuses on strategies for diversifying the academic field: When institutions are deciding who to grant tenure to, how will they evaluate a candidate’s accomplishments during coronavirus? 

 

Prior to the pandemic, some studies showed that in recent years, the gender gap in academia—specifically related to tenure and doctorate degrees—was beginning to level out.

 

However, since the onset of coronavirus, editors have noticed a trend: Women academics are submitting fewer papers during coronavirus—with some fields like astrophysics reporting a 50 percent productivity loss among women. This could mean the gender gap in higher education is rearing its ugly head again. 

 

“We don’t want a committee to look at the outlier productivity of, say, a white hetero man with a spouse at home and say, ‘Well, this person managed it,’” Gonzales told the Lily. “We don’t want to make that our benchmark [of deciding tenure or not].”

See also No Room of One's Own: Data Suggests COVID Negatively Affecting Women's, but Not Men's, Research Productivity

May 6, 2020 in Equal Employment, Family, Gender, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, May 5, 2020

Call for Nominations Women in International Law Scholarship Prize

Women in International Law Interest Group

Scholarship Prize

2020-2021

Call for Nominations

            The Inaugural WILIG Scholarship Prize Committee (Lori Damrosch, Adrien Wing, Viviana Krsticevic, Nienke Grossman and Milena Sterio) invites you to submit a nomination for the first WILIG Scholarship Prize.

            The WILIG Scholarship Prize aims to highlight and promote excellence in international law scholarship involving women and girls, gender, and feminist approaches. Although scholars have utilized gender and feminist analyses in international law for at least a quarter of a century, such approaches frequently fail to permeate the mainstream of international legal scholarship and practice. This prize, awarded every two years, recognizes innovative contributions to international law scholarship that theorize or utilize a feminist lens or lenses, highlight and seek to address topics disproportionately affecting women and girls, or consider the impact of international law or policy on gender more broadly.

            WILIG’s Scholarship Prize Committee invites all ASIL members to submit a single article, chapter, or book published in the last three years, for consideration. Self-nomination is welcome, as is nomination of others. The Committee will consider the following criteria in granting the award, and encourages nominators to include a brief cover letter describing how the submitted work meets these criteria:

  • Appropriate Substance. The work utilizes a feminist lens or lenses, addresses a topic that disproportionately affects women and girls, or considers the impact of international law or policy on gender more broadly.
  • The work addresses topics not covered by previous scholars, highlights diverse perspectives on law and policy, uses new theoretical or methodological approaches, or applies theoretical or methodological approaches to topics in new ways.
  • The work demonstrates in-depth knowledge and expertise concerning a topic.
  • The work has affected or has the potential to affect the way scholars and policy-makers view or address a particular topic or issue going forward.

Please email your cover letter and scholarly work to lschnitzer@ubalt.edu with subject line “WILIG Scholarship Prize Submission” by June 15, 2020.  Questions about the prize can be emailed to wilig@asil.org.

The WILIG Scholarship Prize will be awarded at the WILIG Luncheon at the 2021 ASIL Annual Meeting.

May 5, 2020 in Call for Papers, International, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, April 27, 2020

No Room of One's Own: Data Suggest Covid-19 is Negatively Impacting Women's, but not Men's, Research Productivity

Early Journal Submission Data Suggest COVID-19 is Tanking Women's Research Productivity

It was easy to foresee: within academe, female professors would bear the professional brunt of social distancing during COVID-19, in the form of decreased research productivity.

 

Now the evidence is starting to emerge. Editors of two journals say that they’re observing unusual, gendered patterns in submissions. In each case, women are losing out.

 

Editors of a third journal have said that overall submissions by women are up right now, but that solo-authored articles by women are down substantially.

 

In the most obvious example of the effects of social distancing carving into women's research time, Elizabeth Hannon, deputy editor of the British Journal for the Philosophy of Sciencewrote on Twitter that she’d received “negligible” submissions from women within the last month. “Never seen anything like it,” she added***

 

This doesn’t mean that COVID-19 "hasn’t taken a toll on female authors, though," Dolan and Lawless wrote, as women submitted just eight of the 46 solo-authored papers during this time. That’s 17 percent, compared to 22 percent of solo-authored papers in the larger data set.

 

"As a percentage change, that’s substantial," the editors said. "Even if women’s overall submission rates are up, they seem to have less time to submit their own work than men do amid the crisis.”

 

The revelations generated much chatter, including from gender studies scholars and women in all fields who are desperately trying to balance teaching and otherwise working from home with increased caregiving responsibilities. Those responsibilities include all-day minding of children due to school and daycare closures, homeschooling, and the cooking and cleaning associated with having one’s family at home all day, every day. Women are also spending time checking in with friends, relatives and neighbors.***

 

 It’s not that men don’t help with all this, or that they’re not also individually overwhelmed by work and family life. But women already juggled more domestic and affective, or emotional, labor with their actual work prior to the pandemic.

 

Female academics, as a group, also struggled more with work-work balance, as well: numerous studies show they take on more service work than men and are less protective of their research time, to their detriment.

 

The coronavirus has simply exacerbated these inequities by stripping away what supports women had in place to walk this tightrope, including childcare.*** “My husband is working full-time at home, as am I, and what I’m finding is for men, there is more of an expectation that he can be working all the time than there is for me.”***

 

“Silence and concentration are pivotal for my thinking and teaching,” she wrote. “This means I have less time for writing scientific articles.”

 

While she and her colleagues know they’re lucky to be employed and healthy at this time, it still feels “as if I am my own subject” in some work-life balance study.

 

Minello also expressed concern about when the crisis is over, both parents and nonparents “will participate together in open competition for promotion and positions, parents and nonparents alike.”

 

Just like academic fathers, nonparents don’t have it easy right now -- no one does. But, again, there are well-documented challenges that academic mothers, in particular, face. Those challenges, together, have been dubbed the motherhood penalty. And they’re laid bare right now.

Women Academics Submitting Fewer Papers to Journals During Coronavirus

Six weeks into widespread self-quarantine, editors of academic journals have started noticing a trend: Women — who inevitably shoulder a greater share of family responsibilities — seem to be submitting fewer papers. This threatens to derail the careers of women in academia, says Leslie Gonzales, a professor of education administration at Michigan State University, who focuses on strategies for diversifying the academic field: When institutions are deciding who to grant tenure to, how will they evaluate a candidate’s accomplishments during coronavirus?

“We don’t want a committee to look at the outlier productivity of, say, a white hetero man with a spouse at home and say, ‘Well, this person managed it,’” says Gonzales. “We don’t want to make that our benchmark.”

April 27, 2020 in Family, Gender, Pop Culture, Scholarship, Workplace | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, November 18, 2019

Leveling Down Gender Equality by Denying Remedies for Equal Protection Violations

Pleased to see that my recent article, Leveling Down Gender Equality, in the Harvard Journal of Law & Gender (2019), was reviewed favorably today in JOTWELL   Chao-Ju Chen, Equality for Whom: The Curious Case of RBG's Equality and Morales-Santana's Nationality.

Sessions v. Morales-Santana is a curious case of gender equality, simultaneously celebrated for refining the Supreme Court’s view on sex-classification while condemned for providing the plaintiff “the mean remedy.”1 Striking down a gender-based distinction in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) by arguing against legislating based on gender stereotypes, it is a landmark success for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the liberal feminist brand of equality jurisprudence. Refusing to grant the plaintiff citizenship by offering a leveling-down remedy, it is a cruel blow to the plaintiff, whose win in the nation’s equality law is a loss in his unequal life. Tracy A. Thomas’ Leveling Down Gender Equality provides a deliberate critique that details the Court’s decision in the historical context of immigration laws and gender equality review, sheds light on the dark sides of celebrity Justice Ginsburg’s gender equality jurisprudence, and proposes a way forward: “leveling up” as the presumption. It is a must-read for anyone who wonders what has happened to Ginsburg’s gender equality jurisprudence and what to do about the Court’s mean remedy.***

The core mission of Leveling Down Gender Equality is to rebut the Court’s remedy presumption that leveling-up (extension) and leveling-down (nullification) are equally valid remedies for a violation of equality and to argue for the presumption of leveling up to protect the right to a meaningful remedy. From Thomas’ point of view, the answer to the curious case of Ginsburg’s equality and Morales-Santana’s nationality lies in the Court’s choice of remedy, rather than in its choice of equality review (anti-classification or anti-subordination). She began her adventure by first explaining the Court’s mean remedy and alternative remedies considered but not adopted in detail (Part I), then argued for the presumption of leveling up (Part II) and reasoned why leveling down should be treated as a rare exception (Part III).

The highlights of Part I lie in its success in locating the mean remedy in the context of Ginsburg’s gender equality jurisprudence and judicial philosophy. Thomas refuted the convenient guess that the mean remedy was a pragmatic strategy to achieve majority, and argued instead that Ginsburg’s choice of eliminating preference for women “fits within her bigger concern about stereotypes, backlash, and denial stemming from protectionism” (P. 190) and was guided by her “deeper jurisprudential concerns about systematic gender norms” (P. 191) and preference for judicial constraint. Comparing what “then-professor Ginsburg” had said to what “Justice Ginsburg” did in Morales-Santana, Thomas showed how Justice Ginsburg, while maintaining then-professor Ginsburg’s preference for the “legislative-like role of the court” in remedial decisions, failed to employ then-professor Ginsburg’s proposed guidelines, which would have supported leveling up. She forcefully demonstrated that Justice Ginsburg “had the precedents for leveling up on her side, yet she adopted the countervailing view in the name of judicial restraint” (P. 193), and criticized Ginsburg’s omission, misreading and non-engagement with gender equality precedents which would have required stronger evidence of legislative intent and evaluations of equitable considerations as well as their implications that extension, rather than nullification, had been a generally preferred choice.***

The second step of Thomas’ mission is to establish the presumption of leveling up and leveling down as the rare exception. Relying on the familiar feminist critique that equality means more than mere formal equal treatment, Thomas argued for equality as equal concern. She contended that leveling down for gender equality is normatively inconsistent with constitutional requirement, because “denying a benefit in order to rectify inequality . . . fails to honor or effectuate the ultimate meaning of the operative constitutional right.” (P. 200.) She cited Palmer v. Thompson as an example to show how closing down all pools to remedy racially segregated swimming pools serves to perpetuate and reinforce, rather than abolish, racial inequality. On top of leaving inequality intact, she argued, leveling down will also discourage legal actions for justice and compromise citizens’ ability to “act as private attorney generals to help enforce the public laws of gender equality.” (P. 201.)

In her arguments against leveling down as a meaningful remedy for plaintiffs, Thomas invoked Ginsburg’s own judicial record to demonstrate how Justice Ginsburg has deviated from her professional past. In United States v. Virginia, Ginsburg made clear that the plaintiff’s rightful position was the targeted goal of equal protection remedy, which demanded to eliminate both the ongoing discrimination and the discriminatory effects of the past. Writing for the majority, Ginsburg rejected the defendant’s choice of remedy to provide a separate military education for women, and emphasized that the key question for the Court was the plaintiff’s denied benefit. Again, should Ginsburg have done what Ginsburg did in Virginia, an extension would have been the remedy for Morales-Santana. Besides, Ginsburg’s decision does not survive the test of valuing equitable concerns relevant to overcoming leveling up (cost or economic impact, harms to third parties, and broader national policy concerns). The legislative history of intent to discriminate against Mexican and Asian people should have been taken into account.***

At the end of the article, Thomas delivered her final blow to the case and concluded that “such a case does not leave a promising legacy for gender equality jurisprudence, but instead takes one giant constitutional step backwards.” (P. 218.) 

November 18, 2019 in Constitutional, Family, Gender, Scholarship, SCOTUS | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, July 23, 2019

Female Academic Voices Are Missing from the Media, Even when their Work Isn't

It's Not Just Sarah Milov. Female Academics aren't Credited in the Media All the Time

“The research we have shows that women’s voices are missing from the media,” said Kate McCarthy, who runs WMC SheSource for the Women’s Media Center, a national database designed to connect journalists with female experts. “And frequently when women are called on to offer something up, they are quoted without citation.”

 

The problem is particularly acute for black women, said Christen Smith, a professor of anthropology at the University of Texas at Austin, and founder of the Cite Black Women Collective, an organization that promotes the citation of black women in academia. “Women in general don’t get quoted, but black women experience it threefold. We get it from all sides,” said Smith, who started the collective after a colleague paraphrased whole sections of her book in a conference presentation without any citation. Black women, Smith said, are far less likely to be seen as “experts” by the media, and are therefore less likely to be approached for an interview in the first place.

 

July 23, 2019 in Gender, Media, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, June 11, 2019

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)