Thursday, December 27, 2018

Call for Papers: Michigan Law School Junior Scholars Conference 2019

Michigan Law School Junior Scholars Conference 2019

April 26-27, 2019

Call for Papers

Deadline for Submission: January 12, 2019


The University of Michigan Law School invites junior scholars to attend the 5th Annual Junior Scholars
Conference, which will be held on April 26-27, 2019 in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The conference provides junior scholars
with a platform to present and discuss their work with peers, and to receive detailed feedback from senior members of
the Michigan Law faculty. The Conference aims to promote fruitful collaboration between participants and to encourage
their integration into a community of legal scholars. The Junior Scholars Conference is intended for academics in both
law and related disciplines. Applications from postdoctoral researchers, lecturers, fellows, SJD/PhD candidates, and
assistant professors (pre-tenure) who have not held an academic position for more than four years, are welcomed.

Cooperation with Michigan Law Journals: We are excited that this year the Conference will collaborate with several Michigan Law journals, all of which are among the highest ranked in their respective fields. The (1) Michigan Law Review Online, (2) Michigan Journal of International Law, (3) Michigan Journal of Law Reform, (4) Michigan Journal of Gender and Law, (5) Michigan Technology Law Review, (6) Michigan Journal of Race and Law, and (7) Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review will give serious consideration to publish papers selected for the Conference that are within each journal’s research agenda and meet its requirements. Additional details on the publication process will be provided after selection for participation in the Conference itself has been completed. In any event, there will be no obligation to accept any offer of publication that you may receive.

Submission: To apply to the Conference, please send (1) an abstract of no more than 600 words reflecting the
unpublished work that you wish to present; and (2) a copy of your CV to law-doconf@umich.edu by January 12, 2019.
Please attach the relevant documents as separate files. These should be saved as word documents in the following
format: LAST NAME – FIRST NAME – ABSTRACT/CV/FUNDING. Selection will be based on the quality and
originality of the abstract, as well as its capacity to engage with and foster a collaborative dialogue with other proposals.
Selected presenters will be notified no later than February 4, 2019. Final papers are due on April 1, 2019, so that they
may be sent to your faculty commentator and circulated among participants in advance.

Financial Assistance: The University of Michigan Law School may allocate limited funds to help cover partial travel
expenses and accommodation for selected participants. If you wish to be considered for financial assistance, please
submit a separate written request along with your abstract submission specifying your city of departure and an estimate
of travel costs. We regret in advance that we are unable to provide full financial assistance to participants.

David Hughes, Chair
University of Michigan Law School
Junior Scholars Organizing Committee
law-doconf@umich.edu

December 27, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, December 21, 2018

The Alpha Female and the Sinister Seven

The Alpha Female and the Sinister Seven

(forthcoming in Presumed Incompetent II: Intersections of Race and Class for Women in Academia, eds. Carmen Gonzalez, Yolanda Niemann, and Gabriella Gutierrez y Muhs).

When I decided to contribute to Presumed Incompetent II, a litany of bad experiences came to mind – ranging from outright assaults on my job security to the daily microaggressions that remind you every day that no matter how hard you work, how many awards you receive, and how frequently your work is cited, you are and will remain at the bottom of the gender and racial hierarchy undergirding American society in general, and the legal academy in particular (Carbon and Cahn 2013; Monroe and Chiu 2010). 

Being an academic, I could not resist developing a typology of the various characters and forms of racism, sexism, and Islamophobia I have experienced in the academy. Based on my conversations with other women of color at various law schools coupled with the literature on systemic gender and racial biases in the legal academy, I suspect my proposed typology applies to law schools across the country (Deo 2015). My aim is to theorize why I, and other women like me, have such negative experiences in a profession that purports to be training the next generation of lawyers and leaders to be civil, ethical, and collaborative. In direct contradiction to these values, harms we experience arise from duplicitous, conniving, and dishonest behavior that produce disrespectful and condescending mistreatment. 

In attempting to understand this contradiction between law schools’ stated commitments to civility, ethics and integrity on the one hand and the depraved behavior of some faculty towards (some) female professors of color on the other hand, I realize my situation is unique insofar as I am a particular type of woman — The Alpha Female. Thus, I am marked as a triple outsider (female, racial/ethnic/religious minority, and alpha) in a profession that expects leadership, intelligence, and confidence from its members and yet penalizes women and minorities for possessing such traits (Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins 1989; Moncrief 2015; Aziz 2014). Despite the common usage of the Alpha Male to denote masculinity, leadership, charisma, and social aggressiveness — all traits admired in men — there is no recognition, much less desire, for the female counterpart (Ludmand and Erlandson 2004; Hawley, Little and Card 2008, Ludmand and Erlandson 2006). The dearth of literature about Alpha Females produces a blind spot in socio-legal analysis on gender equality (Popson and Dipaolo 2010; Moncrief 2015). 

As such, this chapter seeks to incorporate the concept of the Alpha Female into my experiences as a woman of color in the legal academy who not only is presumed incompetent because of my immutable racial and ethnic characteristics; but also presumed aggressive (rather than driven and focused) and insolent (rather than confident and competent) because of my alpha personality traits — for which my white male counterparts receive promotions to leadership positions and accolades. I hope this chapter triggers further research on the interplay of alpha personality traits, race, and gender.

To read the chapter, click here.

December 21, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, December 19, 2018

Call for Papers: Slavery Past, Present and Future

Call for Papers: 

SLAVERY PAST, PRESENT & FUTURE: 4th Global Meeting

University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
June 17-19, 2019

Slavery (the treatment of humans as chattel) and enslavement through conquest, birth, gender, race, ethnicity, and exploitation of indebtedness have been an intrinsic part of human societies.

Slavery and a variety of other forms of exploitation existed in the ancient societies of China, Egypt, Greece, India, Russia and many other states and territories.  The Transatlantic Slave Trade furnished at least 10 million Africans for slavery throughout the Americas. 

 

Controversial and contested estimates indicate that up to 40 million people worldwide are enslaved today.  This modern re-emergence of slavery into public view, following legal abolition of the trans-Atlantic slave trade over two hundred years ago, is said to be linked to the deepening interconnectedness of countries in the global economy, overpopulation, and the economic and other vulnerabilities of individual victims and communities.

But should we think of these people as enslaved? And if so, is slavery an inevitable part of the human condition? Like ‘consumers’ of past eras, such as early industrialization, are we dependent on the exploitation of others? What does the persistence and mutations of different forms of exploitation mean in the context of abolition and recognition of universal individual and collective human rights? 

The varieties of contemporary forms of exploitation appear to be endless. This interdisciplinary conference will facilitate a multidisciplinary exploration of slavery in all its dimensions. 

Submissions are sought from people from all walks of life and identities, including:

·       Academics: from all disciplines, such as art, film, anthropology, sociology, history, ethnic studies, politics, social work, economics, and any field that touches the study of exploitation

·       Civil society members: human rights activists, leaders in non-governmental organizations, and others in the NGO or social advocacy fields

·       Professionals: social workers, corporate social responsibility and business ethics professionals, business leaders, and health care professionals

·       Government actors: representatives, policymakers, lobbyists, and analysts

·       Global citizens with personal connections to slavery or exploitation: former slaves or indentured laborers, members of at-risk populations, migrant or guest workers, non-regularized immigrants, and refugees

Potential themes and sub-themes include but are not limited to:

  1. Defining Slavery:
    1. What do we mean when we talk about “slavery”
    2. Using “slavery” to obscure other endemic forms of exploitation
    3. Teaching and learning about historic slavery and contemporary forms of exploitation
  2. Slaveries of the Past
    1. Classical (Egyptian, Greco-Roman, etc.) slavery
    2. Conquests and colonization – Aboriginal Australians, indigenous peoples of the New World, dividing and colonizing Africa and Asia
    3. Slaveries in Europe pre-Industrialization, such as villeinage and serfdom
    4. Trans-Atlantic Slavery and the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade
    5. Depictions of slaves and slave traders in texts and art during the Abolition Period
    6. Systems of slavery in tribal and traditional societies
    7. WWII and post-WWII forced labor camps
  3. Human Trafficking and other Forms of Contemporary Exploitation
    1. Definitions - Is human trafficking “slavery”
    2. Types of human trafficking (labor trafficking, sex trafficking, organ trafficking, etc.)
    3. Civil society anti-trafficking activism: assessing contemporary initiatives and movements
    4. The role of the nation state:

                                                               i.      Can the nation state enslave? (prison labor, mandated military service, etc.)

                                                             ii.      Anti-trafficking policies and legislation

  1. Systems and Structures of Enslavement and Subordination (historic and contemporary)
    1. Role of slavery in national and global economies
    2. Economic, political, legal structures – their role in enslavement and exploitation
    3. Slavery’s impact on culture and the cultural impacts of historic slavery
  2. Voices of the Enslaved
    1. Slave narratives of the past and present
    2. Descendants’ interpretation of their enslaved and/or slave-holding ancestors
  3. Legacies of slavery
    1. Identifying and mapping contemporary legacies – economic, social, cultural, psychological (e.g., Post traumatic stress disorder and intergenerational trauma)
    2. Assessment of slavery’s impact – economic, political, other
    3. Commemorations and memorialization of enslavers and/or the enslaved
    4. Legal regimes tacitly designed to perpetuate slavery (e.g., convict leasing)
    5. Legal segregation or discrimination (in housing, education, banking, transportation, etc.)
    6. Racial terror (e.g., lynching, forced removals)
    7. Racial subordination and re-enslavement (e.g., voter disfranchisement, mass incarceration, medical apartheid)
    8. Desecration of burial sites of the enslaved
    9. Destruction of or denial of access to historical information
    10. Lack of memorialization of sacred events/sacred persons/sacred sites
    11. Transitional justice (e.g., reparations, memorialization, restitution)
    12. Limited rights attribution and recognition for Afro-descended peoples
    13. Capacities (and limitations) of domestic and international law in creating, implementing and challenging slavery’s legacies
    14. Built environment (e.g., architecture, historic buildings, cityscapes, borders)
  4. Anti-slavery initiatives and movements:
    1. Reparations
    2. Economic compensation
    3. Restorative justice
    4. Teaching and learning about slavery
    5. Relationship to the global racial hierarchy
    6. Abolitionism and law: effects and (in)effectiveness
    7. The role of media and social media

 

Conference Committee:

·       Karen E. Bravo (Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, IN, USA)

·       David Bulla (Augusta University, GA, USA)

·       Ursula Doyle (Northern Kentucky University School of Law, KY, USA)

·       Clare McLeod (Cornell University, NY, USA)

·       Judith Onwubiko (University of Kent, United Kingdom)

·       Ulrich Pallua (University of Innsbruck, Austria)

·       Sufinnah Singlee (University of Cape Town, South Africa)

·       Sheetal Shah (Webster University, Leiden, The Netherlands)

·       Polina Smiragina (University of Sydney, Australia)

·       Judith Spicksley (University of Hull, United Kingdom)

 

Submitting Your Proposal:

Proposals should be submitted no later than Friday, March 2, 2019 to:

·       Karen E. Bravo, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law: kbravo@iupui.edu

·       E-Mail Subject Line: Slavery Past Present & Future 4 Proposal Submission

·       File Format: Microsoft Word (DOC or DOCX)

The following information must be included in the body of the email:

·       Author(s)

·       Affiliation as you would like it to appear in the conference program

·       Corresponding author email address

The following information must be in the Microsoft Word file:

·       Title of proposal

·       Body of proposal (maximum of 300 words)

·       Keywords (maximum of ten)

Please keep the following in mind:

·       All text must be in Times New Roman 12.

·       No footnotes or special formatting (bold, underline, or italicization) must be used.

 

Evaluating Your Proposal

All abstracts will be double-blind peer reviewed and you will be notified of the Organizing Committee’s decision no later than Friday, 15 March 2019.  If a positive decision is made, you will be asked to promptly register online. You will be asked to submit a draft paper of no more than 3000 words by Friday, 03 May 2019.

The conference registration fee is U.S. $ 250. Please note that we are not in a position to provide funding to facilitate your participation.

December 19, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, December 4, 2018

Trump, Anti-Muslim Rhetoric, and the Supreme Court

 

Last week, I had the pleasure of being a guest on the Good Law Bad Law podcast where I addressed the broader social and political implications of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. Hawaii.  I spoke with Aaron Freiwald, the host of Good Law Bad Law, on how Trump's Islamophobic rhetoric during his presidential campaign informs the real intentions behind the travel ban, also known as the Muslim Ban.  The podcast can be accessed on YouTube here and online here.

 

Good Law Bad Law

 

In my article A Muslim Registry: The Precursor to Internment?, I argued why such rhetoric, referred to as extrinsic evidence, should be reviewed in the Court's assessment of whether Trump's anti-Muslim animus motivated the travel ban.

Being political scapegoats in the indefinite ‘war on terror’ is the new normal for Muslims in America. With each federal election cycle or terrorist attack in a Western country comes a spike in Islamophobia. Candidates peddle tropes of Muslims as terrorists in campaign materials and political speeches to solicit votes. Government officials call for bold measures – extreme vetting, bans, and mass deportations – to regulate and exclude Muslim bodies from U.S. soil.

The racial subtext is that Muslims in the United States are outsiders who do not belong to the political community. A case in point is the “Muslim Ban” issued by the Trump administration in 2017.   The article goes on to examine the legality of the Muslim Registry that Trump called for during his campaign, but instead opted for a partial Muslim travel ban--for now at least.

 


 

December 4, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)