In Print
Filter
Post List
“I Will Not Sit Idly By While My Future is Determined:” The Response of the University of Michigan Black Law Students’ Alliance to Grutter V. Bollinger, Et Al.
Back in 1998, the Michigan Journal of Gender & Law expressed support for the University of Michigan Law School's defense of its affirmative action policy, which is at controversy in Grutter v. Bollinger. Today, as in 1998, "[W]e certainly do not believe the Law School admissions policy truly addresses the inequalities within our law school and the legal profession generally. Legal education is unfortunately not a bastion of diversity." Women and students of color struggle to be heard and seen, and to achieve equal representation in both the study and practice of law. "Without active efforts, we cannot create a society with equal opportunity for people of different races, genders, and sexual orientations. We strive for such a reality, and we hope that the Law School will not be prohibited from trying to move us there. Diversity is more than a method of enhancing the intellectual experience of law students or a narrow manifestation of 'fairness' which should be protected; it is justice that the Law School, its faculty, and its students are affirmatively obligated to seek out." Now, three years later, the validity of the Law School's affirmative action policy still hangs in the balance. Unfortunately, the most recent decision in the matter was not favorable for supporters of affirmative action. Now more than ever, the Michigan Journal of Gender & Law stands by the Law School and its policies. As a journal, however, we also are committed to providing a forum for the discussion of all views, regardless of whether they comport with our own. Accordingly, we solicited responses to the District Court's Grutter opinion from the Michigan Law School community. The Black Law Students' Alliance ("BLSA") submitted the following press release and amicus brief. Although we would prefer to publish a range of opinions on the issue, BLSA is the only entity that submitted a response piece to us for publication. The Michigan Journal of Gender & Law remains committed to providing a forum in which all voices are heard-herein is BLSA's voice.The Customer is Always Right… Not! Employer Liability for Third Party Sexual Harassment
This article will ask a series of questions. What is third party sexual harassment? Under what conditions does it occur? Does it differ in any significant respects from traditional notions of sexual harassment? Should those differences, if any, make a difference in the way that the legal system addresses third party harassment? And indeed, should the problem be addressed solely through the legal system? What might an employer do to alleviate sexual harassment of this type?Whatever Happened to G.I. Jane?: Citizenship, Gender, and Social Policy in the Postwar Era
In this Article, it is argued that the GI Bill is consistent with the social welfare policies of the New Deal period, in particular the Social Security Act of 1935, and so should be examined within the analytical framework established by scholars like Linda Gordon and Theda Skocpol in their studies of the Social Security Act's social welfare programs. Although the Bill is gender-neutral on its face, it was framed by normative assumptions about military participation and work that ensured that it was socially understood to benefit male veterans.“Just Like One of the Family”: Domestic Violence Paradigms and Combating On-The-Job Violence Against Household Workers in the United States
This Article argues that the immense problem of on-the-job abuse experienced by domestic workers demands a multifaceted plan of attack. The proposed responses specifically draw upon the capacities, strengths, and resources of women, particularly comparatively privileged women, as both activists and employers of domestic workers. By describing the circumstances of domestic work in the United States from the nation's inception to the present, Part I demonstrates the prevalence and intractability of on-the-job physical and sexual abuse and argues that other women, as employers of domestic workers, have historically played a complex role in participating in, condoning, or failing to acknowledge this abuse. Part II asserts that the legal and socioeconomic contexts of contemporary domestic work reflect the prevalence of immigrant women of color in the contemporary domestic workforce and the unique challenges they face as workers in the U.S. Part III examines the present-day incidence of harassment and violence against domestic workers-as revealed through newspaper accounts, interviews with domestic workers, and case law-and analyzes common threads of experience in these narratives. Based on these findings, this Part contends that physical and sexual abuse suffered by many domestic workers combines elements of workplace harassment with characteristics typical of "domestic violence," making this abuse more challenging to combat than "standard" workplace harassment.The Logician Versus the Linguist- an Empirical Tale of Functional Discrimination in the Legal Academy
This paper, focusing exclusively on gender, asks whether male and female law students express different preferences for logic-based learning models. A wide variety of educational theories and other theories have been used to conceptualize different learning preferences among law students but until now, none has focused on logical intelligence compared with the other intelligences. Using Harvard educational psychologist Howard Gardner's theory of Multiple Intelligences, this paper describes an empirical study establishing that male and female law students express differences in preferring logical intelligence over the other intelligences. This paper introduces the concept of "functional discrimination," addressing the ways in which law school functionally discriminates against women by significantly favoring logical intelligence. Law School functionally discriminates against women (1) by not providing women access to the prime benefits of the institution andBrief for the Plaintiff-Appellant Lucas Rosa in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Lucas Rosa V. Park West Bank and Trust Company on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
The District Court fundamentally misconceived the law as applicable to the Plaintiffs claim by concluding that there may be no relationship, as a matter of law, between telling a bank customer what to wear and sex discrimination. It also misapplied Rule 12(b)(6) to the extent that it resolved any factual questions beyond the allegations of the Complaint regarding the basis of the Bank's different treatment of the Plaintiff. Finally, because the District Court incorrectly dismissed the single federal claim in Plaintiffs Complaint, it improperly dismissed Plaintiffs pendant state claims for want of federal court jurisdiction.Androgenius
A Poem.Law as a Tool for a Sexual Revolution: Israel’s Prevention of Sexual Harassment Law- 1998
Discussion of the newly enacted law will outline the theoretical underpinnings and their effect on the resultant version (Part III), followed by the legislative history, including the Knesset and the public debate surrounding the bill (Part IV), and the impact of that debate on the final outcome of the law (Part V). Part VI will pay particular attention to the innovative approach of the law as a whole and some of the revolutionary specific provisions within. In particular, the legislative framework will be considered in the context of a nation founded and conducted on traditional religious tenets of Judaism. Finally, an analysis of the implementation and implication of the law will encompass sociocultural factors, feasibility, and potential impact (Part VII).Reconsidering the Abuse That Dare Not Speak Its Name: A Criticism of Recent Legal Scholarship Regarding Same-Gender Domestic Violence
This article argues that while recent legal scholarship effectively disputes the applicability of a gendered model of domestic violence to same-gender abuse, it goes too far in embracing a completely gender-neutral model. Part I explains the theoretical problems with the non-gendered model of domestic violence by examining in detail the research which is most often cited in legal writings in support of this model. Part II briefly explores the pragmatic implications for lesbian and gay male victims of domestic violence when law enforcement policies such as mandatory arrest are based on a model of domestic violence which ignores contexts such as gender. Finally, Part III recommends initially abandoning any single model of domestic violence that assumes a priori gender neutrality, and instead constructing multiple models limited to specific contexts and dynamics. Once these multiple models have been adequately assessed and tested, their common threads can be identified and woven into an integrated meta-model.