The Faculty Lounge

Prof. Stanley Replies

Professor Stanley has put up a fairly lengthy comment in reply to my earlier post, for which I thank him.  He has graciously acknowledged that his original article was unclear, and he has accepted responsibility for the consequent “misunderstandings.”  I am glad to have that cleared up, and especially to see Stanley’s robust commitment to open exchanges and freedom of speech.

Nonetheless, Stanley continues to blame Yudof and Waltzer for threats that have “literally placed Paur's (sic) life in peril.”  Such threats are despicable.  Stanley has received them (following his writing on prisons), and so have I (when I write something favorable toward Israel).  But what is a critic to do?  Stanley does not come out and say so, but his argument implicitly calls for precisely the sort of silencing that he otherwise abhors.  Should Yudof and Waltzer have kept their opinions to themselves?  How does that advance discourse?

Stanley also argues that the lack of objection during Puar’s Vassar lecture indicates that “what she was saying wasn't that objectionable.”  Really?  Does he apply that same standard to, say, Donald Trump, whose Islamophobic rantings draw only cheers at his rallies?  Audience agreement tells us little or nothing about the content of a speech.

I can only assume that Stanley has not read a transcript of Puar’s Vassar lecture. Here are a couple of choice passages that have been widely reported:

Some speculate that the [Palestinian] bodies were mined for organs for scientific research. 

Prehensive time thus also signals a weaponized epigenetics where the outcome is not so much about winning or losing nor a solution but about needing body parts, not even whole bodies, for research and experimentation.

Does Stanley truly find these comments inoffensive?  Or can he now recognize that the reaction (including much applause) of the Vassar audience indeed indicated something troubling on that campus? 

Note:  As I was writing this, Stanley posted three more comments that somewhat walked back the first (there may be more by now, as I have not been able to keep up).  One of them accused me of propaganda (which I suppose is in the eye of the beholder), and another of misrepresenting Puar’s views about harvesting body parts. Regarding the latter, please see the above quotes, which Puar does not appear to have denied making. Yudof and Waltzer were quite explicit about Puar’s Vassar speech, which I have now confirmed from a transcript.  They and I have both represented her statements accurately.  Let’s hope that Stanley is willing to post another correction.

Justice Thomas Asks A Question

His first in many years.  He expressed concern about the collateral consequences of a misdemeanor conviction.  Not really the kind of collateral consequence that folks like Michelle Alexander and Marc Mauer worry about, however.   All the details here.

Whose Free Speech Fallacy Is It?

I am hoping that commenters can help me understand an article titled “The Free Speech Fallacy,” by Jason Stanley of the Yale philosophy department, which appeared today in the Chronicle of Higher Education.  I have now read it twice, and I cannot figure out Prof. Stanley’s ultimate position on free expression.

He begins by discussing a recent speech at Vassar by Rutgers Professor Jasbir Puar, in which she evidently accused Israel of “min[ing] the organs of dead Palestinians for scientific research.”  This is apparently okay with Stanley because Prof. Puar is an “agenda setting scholar” whose work has been "cited over 1700 times."

Stanley then describes a Wall Street Journal oped by Mark Yudof and Ken Waltzer, in which they accuse Puar of reviving a “blood libel.”  This is evidently not okay, even though both Yudof (former president of three universities) and Waltzer (emeritus professor of History at Michigan State) are prominent academics in their own right, and they no doubt have admirable citation counts.

The difference seems to be that Yudof and Waltzer employed “rhetorical excesses” such as “hatred of Jews” and “blood libel,” as opposed to Puar, who merely attributes “deliberate maiming” and body part harvesting to Israel.  I have not previously been aware that rhetorical excesses are prohibited in academic debate, and Stanley does not explain how to distinguish the acceptable ones from the bad ones.  

In any case, the Yudof and Waltzer oped did nothing more that criticize Puar, even if harshly, which would seem to be well within the bounds of intellectual discourse.  Yes, the Wall Street Journal has a broad reach, but distribution seems to be a good thing in Puar’s case (1700 citations), so why would it be held against Yudof and Waltzer?

Stanley’s apparent answer is that the WSJ oped “predictably led to a wave of violent threats against Puar, which of course strongly discourages other academics from taking similar positions in public.”  It ought to be obvious, however, that Yudof and Waltzer are not responsible for the outbursts of others, and that it is wrong to silence critics for fear of the reaction.  Later in the article, Stanley completely reverses his position, noting a tweet from Jonathan Haidt that “declared Puar’s talk a threat to the safety of Jewish students, laying responsibility on the campus culture.”  But no matter, says Stanley, because Haidt “mentions nothing about Puar’s free-speech rights.”  For Puar, it seems, free speech is the most important value.  For Yudof and Waltzer, apparently, not so much.

But then Stanley digs deeper, criticizing a group called the Heterodox Academy whose announced goal is to increase “viewpoint diversity” in higher education, including their observation that "antiracism is now a religion…. Certain questions are not to be asked, or if asked, only politely." 

In this, the Heterodox Academy has it all wrong, says Stanley, because there is no “tension between antiracism and free speech.” “If I tell you that you shouldn’t say racist things, am I really denying you the right to say those things?” 

So we have a contradiction.  It is just fine for Stanley himself to tell people not to say racist things, with no implications for their rights to free expression or free inquiry.  But it is no good at all for Yudof and Waltzer to say the same thing about anti-Jewish memes, because that has the effect of silencing Puar and others.

There is more, but it is equally non-understandable. Stanley accuses Heterodox Academy types of complaining too much when conservative speakers are prevented from presenting their views.  “All year, the charge of imperiling free speech has been used to silence oppressed and marginalized groups and to push back against their interests.”  But how precisely would lectures by conservatives, no matter how rhetorically excessive, “silence” anybody? 

Jason Stanley is a highly accomplished scholar from a very distinguished family, but this article lacks a center of gravity.  Who is allowed to criticize whom, in his opinion?  When does criticism actually amount to silencing? 

My own views, I hope, are more coherent:  I am just fine with speakers such as Prof. Puar, and I would not seek to prevent them, or anyone else, from appearing on campus.  I am likewise fine with criticism from Yudof and Waltzer, as well as with Stanley's criticism of the critics.  I do not think there is anything sinister about Heterodox Academy or the call for more conservative discourse on campus, though there are many right-wing speakers whom I abhor, and whose talks I would never attend.  I also think, it the best tradition of liberalism, that the remedy for objectionable speech is always more speech.  (I supported this principle, for example, when Khalid Abdul Muhammad, a spokesman for Louis Farrakhan known for his anti-Jewish screed, was invited to speak at Northwestern.)

I trust I could find some common ground on free speech with Prof. Stanley, but the first step is figuring out exactly where he stands.

 

[Disclosure:  I am a member of the Academic Engagement Network, of which Yudof is the president and Waltzer the executive director.  I have no connection to the Heterodox Academy, but I note that its members include Jonathan Haidt, John McWhorter, and Steven Pinker, each of whose citation counts outnumbers Puar’s by orders of magnitude.  I mention this only because it apparently matters to Stanley; it does not matter to me.]

Colorado Law Names Four Dean Finalists

From the Colorado press release:

The finalists for the position are S. James Anaya, who is a Regents’ Professor and James J. Lenoir Professor of Human Rights Law and Policy at the University of Arizona; Mary Anne Bobinski, professor at the Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver; Laura E. Gómez, professor at the UCLA School of Law; and Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Charles and Marion J. Kierscht Professor of Law at the University of Iowa College of Law. 

Trusts and Estates Meets Gender, Race, and Class -- CFP

I have just received this following call for papers for the second conference on "Trusts and Estates Meets Gender, Race, and Class."  It will be at Oklahoma City University on September 10, 2016:

Oklahoma City University School of Law is proud to announce that it will host the second one-day conference on the intersection of inheritance law, broadly defined, with gender, race and class, on September 10, 2016.  The Keynote Speaker will be Thomas P. Gallanis, Professor of Law and History at the University of Iowa, College of Law; Conference Commentator will be Professor William LaPiana, Professor of Law at New York Law School.

This conference proceeds from the assumption that, as Lawrence Friedman has said, inheritance is the DNA of society:  it determines which social formations and hierarchies will be replicated from generation to generation and which will change.  In that vein, we seek proposals for papers which examine all aspects of this theme, both within the United States and abroad, within common law, civil law, and other legal traditions.  Possible topics might include: the effect on inheritance of the Obergefell ruling, changing families and existing law, taxation, the role of charitable giving in undermining or replicating social stratification, varying patterns of bequests and inheritance among different ethnic communities, the class and gender implications of the Uniform Probate Code, among others. 

We will also hold a Junior Scholars session at the conference, and encourage young faculty to submit works-in-progress for feedback. 

This papers from this conference, along with presentations from the previous conference on the same topic in 2014, will be submitted to publishers as a book proposal.

Please submit a 300 word abstract for individual papers and 500-word panel proposals to cspivack@okcu.edu by July 1^st.   Presenters will be notified by mid-July.  We look forward to welcoming back everyone who participated in the inaugural conference and to meeting new presenters!

I had the pleasure of participating in the first conference, back in 2013--it was a terrific set of papers and discussions.  And I'm sure this one will be just as good, maybe even better.  The image is Alice Paul Hall on the Swarthmore campus.  I was thinking about that in relation to this CFP because I just taught In re Strittmater in T&E on Thursday -- where a New Jersey court invalidated a devise to the National Women's Party.

Police Do Not Screen Hospital Patients for Outstanding Warrants - Update

A commenter on an earlier thread brought my attention to the tragic case of Joyce Curnell, who died for lack of medical care in police custody in Charleston, South Carolina.  According to "A Sociologist," the Curnell case appeared "to corroborate the collusion between police and the hospitals," as claimed by Alice Goffman.  The comment provided these passages from the Charleston Post & Courier:

Around noon on July 21, Curnell was taken from Edisto Island by ambulance to the hospital as she complained of nausea and vomiting. She was diagnosed in the emergency room with gastroenteritis, an irritation of the stomach and intestines.

At some point at the hospital, it was discovered that she had a bench warrant in a 2011 shoplifting case. She had been put on a payment plan in April 2012 to cover $1,148.90 in fines related to the charge, according to court records, but she quit paying the following January. After she didn’t respond to a letter from the court, the warrant was issued in August 2014.

I therefore investigated the case, and it turns out that there was no collusion between the police and the hospital, much less a "standard practice" of running patient lists for warrant checks.  

In fact, as reported in a subsequent story in the Post & Courier, Ms. Curnell's own son had called 911 to report his mother's location and outstanding warrant, in an attempt to "get her to detox herself."  The story is incredibly sad, but, as I suspected, it does not remotely corroborate Prof. Goffman's claim that police -- in Philadelphia, or anywhere else -- routinely screen hospital patients for outstanding warrants.

[Note: Original post has been edited slightly for clarity.]

 

Alabama Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review

I'm delighted to report that the Alabama Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review has published a symposium on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The articles are:

Steven H. Hobbs, Alabama's Mirror: The People's Crusade for Civil Rights

Richard Delgado, The Shadows and the Fire: Three Puzzles for Civil Rights Scholars

Trina Jones, Title VII at 50: Contemporary Challenges for U.S. Employment Discrimination Law

Alfred L. Brophy, The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fulcrum of Property Rights

Dorothy A. Brown, Diversity and the High-Tech Industry

Gregory S. Parks, Rashawn Ray, and Shawna M. Patterson, Complex Civil Rights Organizations: Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, An Exemplar 

Jasmine B. Gonzales Rose, Race Inequity Fifty Years Later: Language Rights Under The Civil Rights Act of 1964

The image is of Foster Auditorium, where Governor Wallace made his stand in the schoolhouse door -- and where, shortly afterwards, Vivian Malone Jones entered the University.

LSAC and Predicting Applicants for 2016-17, Part 11

Just a few days ago LSAC gave us an update on applicants for 2016-17 through February 12; now we have an update through February 19.  Now they are reporting that "As of 02/19/16, there are 241,604 applications submitted by 37,082 applicants for the 2016–2017 academic year. Applicants are up 1.7% and applications are up 1.4% from 2015–2016.  Last year at this time, we had 66% of the preliminary final applicant count."  Based on this preliminary data, one would predict that there will be around 56,184 applicants for 2016-17.

The last post in this series is here.  The next post in this series is here.

University of Denver Hiring Announcement

The University of Denver Sturm College of Law anticipates hiring a full-time visiting or tenure track faculty position to begin in the 2016-2017 academic year.  Subject matter areas include, but are not limited to: torts, contracts, intellectual property, immigration, and legal research & writing.  We seek applications from experienced candidates with excellent academic records and demonstrated teaching ability.  Applicants must have a law degree; an interest in teaching; excellent legal research, analysis, reasoning, writing and communication skills; the ability to work both independently and cooperatively; and demonstrated potential for outstanding teaching & scholarly achievement. 

In order to be considered for this position, you will need to apply on-line and include a cover letter and resume.  Candidates must apply online through https://dujobs.silkroad.com/ to be considered.  Only applications submitted online will be accepted.  Once within the job description online, please click "New Resume/CV" at the bottom of the page to begin application.  If you have questions regarding this position please contact Professor Michael Siebecker, Chair, Appointments Committee (msiebecker@law.du.edu). 

More information can be found at the DU human resources website.  (Then search for this position under "search current openings.").

Thomas Jefferson Law Seeks Faculty Visitors

This just in:

Thomas Jefferson School of Law invites applications for visiting faculty positions. We are anticipating the need for two or more semester or year-long visitors for the 2016 academic year with likely needs in Legal Writing I, Evidence, Civil Procedure (including the law school's innovative skills-based Civil Procedure II) and Remedies. Prior teaching experience is strongly preferred. Members of minority groups and others whose backgrounds will contribute to the diversity of the faculty are especially encouraged to apply. Interested applicants should email facrecruit@tjsl.edu including a c.v. and cover letter indicating their areas of teaching interest and expertise as well as availability.

Louis D. Brandeis: An Interdisciplinary Retrospective at Touro

Touro Law Center and the Jewish Law Institute will host a national conference, Louis D. Brandeis: An Interdisciplinary Retrospective, March 31 and April 1, 2016. More than thirty judges, lawyers, and scholars, representing a broad range of disciplines and hailing from around the United States, will explore topics that include, among others: Brandeis's groundbreaking work as a lawyer and a scholar; his commitment to his Jewish heritage; his historic appointment to the Supreme Court nearly one hundred years ago; and his jurisprudence on the Court. Speakers will include The Honorable Kermit Lipez, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit; Lance Liebman, former Dean of Columbia Law School and former Director of the American Law Institute; Kenneth Elzinga, Robert C. Taylor Chair in Economics at the University of Virginia; Hasia Diner, Paul S. and Sylvia Steinberg Professor of American Jewish History and Director of the Goldstein-Goren Center for American Jewish History at New York University; and Fred Lawrence, former President of Brandeis University.

More information, including the program, is available here.  The whole conference looks fabulous.

The Future of Ethnography

The Chronicle of Higher Education has published a lengthy profile of Harvard sociologist Matthew Desmond, whose forthcoming book Evicted has drawn tremendous advance praise.  The recipient of a MacArthur Foundation award, Desmond has combined “ethnographic observation with reams of hard-won data,” according to another profile in the New York Times.  The book, which will not be released until March 1, promises to stand out among ethnographies for its close attention to evidence and verification.

Midway through the CHE article, there is a discussion of the impact of the Alice Goffman “controversy” on the practice of urban ethnography.  It appears to have been quite pronounced and positive:

The second subject that could distract Desmond from that message comes down to two words: Alice Goffman. The young sociologist made headlines in 2014 with an ethnographic study of young black men caught up in the criminal-justice system, called On the Run (University of Chicago Press). Like Desmond, she hoped to arouse interest in the plight of urban America. But her book kicked up a backlash as loud as its initial acclaim. Did the privileged white sociologist have the right to tell this story? Did she parrot sources’ claims too credulously? Did her vivid anecdotes actually happen? Had her research crossed the line into criminal behavior?

[T]he controversy over her work also put pressure on her fellow ethnographers. "People doing ethnography today feel more compelled to explain clearly what we do, how we do it," says [Eric] Klinenberg [of NYU].

In addition, Desmond explained that “ethnographers should be more skeptical about their data,” and he acknowledged “that the reception of Goffman’s book shaped his fact-checking.” Thus,

Every quotation was "captured by a digital recorder or copied from official documents," he adds. He also hired a fact-checker who corroborated the book by combing public records, conducting some 30 interviews, and asking him to produce field notes that verified a randomly selected 10 percent of its pages.

My New Rambler review of Goffman’s On the Run, which set this discussion in motion, is here.

Lawrence Ponoroff Named Dean Of Michigan State Law

Michigan State University School of Law announced that Lawrence Ponoroff will be its new dean, effective this summer.  Ponoroff replaces Joan Howarth who has been dean since 2008.  Ponoroff is current on the faculty of the University of Arizona Law where he was dean from 2009-2012.  Before that he was the dean of Tulane Law.

Francis X. Beytagh

I am sorry to report that Francis ("Frank") Beytagh, who served as dean at Ohio State from 1985 to 1993, has passed away.  Cribbing from the Ohio State memorial notice:

Francis X. (“Frank”) Beytagh, dean of the College of Law from 1985-1993, died on February 21 at the age of 80. Dean Beytagh was an outstanding leader, a nationally recognized scholar in his field of Constitutional law, and a dedicated teacher, a role he continued at the College until he took emeritus status in 1997. He continued teaching, on an occasional basis, as an emeritus faculty member until 2006. As dean, Beytagh oversaw the development of the College’s program in alternative dispute resolution, its partnership with Oxford University, and a major building expansion.

The memorial notice is here.

BDS and Anti-Normalization

Palestinian human rights activist Bassam Eid was recently prevented from speaking, or otherwise disrupted, on two Chicago area campuses including Northwestern.  No, he was not a victim of speech-suppressing Zionists; in fact, his talk at Northwestern was sponsored by the local Hillel chapter.  Rather, Eid – whose Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group investigates violations in both Israel and the Palestinian Authority – was prevented from speaking by pro-BDS demonstrators who objected to his opposition to anti-Israel boycotts.

Eid has been shouted down before, in speaking venues around the world, even though he is a forthright opponent of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the situation in Gaza.  His offense appears to be a violation of the BDS prohibition on “normalization,” which prohibits participation in forums that include Israelis (and apparently anyone at all sympathetic to Israel), unless they reject “co-existence” in favor of “co-resistance.”  This is the official position of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) and the BDS National Committee (BNC).

Alas, this is where academic boycotts almost inevitably end up – stifling the speech of anyone who even mildly disagrees with the boycotters.  BDS supporters on many campuses probably do not understand the full implications of the anti-normalization position, and the many ways in which it undermines mutual recognition, understanding, and ultimately the prospect of peace.  Here is what Bassam Eid has to say about it – and what he would have said at Northwestern if he had been able to present his views:

As a Palestinian who actually lives in east Jerusalem and hopes to build a better life for his family and his community, this is the kind of "pro-Palestinian activism" we could well do without. For our own sake, we need to reconcile with our Israeli neighbors, not reject and revile them.

Here are the observations of Michael Simon, the executive director of NU Hillel:

I'm disappointed that we were unable to hear Mr. Eid speak, and that he felt that, based on the presence of at least one of the people who had disrupted his previous local event, he was not comfortable to appear at Northwestern Hillel.  I put this in the context that Northwestern Hillel, and I believe Northwestern overall, is committed to offering opportunities for a free and open exchange of ideas, even of those we might find difficult and challenging, and that it is deeply unfortunate that the presence of what I called "serial protesters" could inhibit such a free and open exchange from taking place.   

He added,

I was actually pleased when I stood before the audience and saw that there were students from organizations involved in education and advocacy related to Israel and students involved in education and advocacy related to Palestine in the room -- students whose perspectives are diverse and even divergent.  This made it all the more disappointing that protesters had created the conditions such that Mr. Eid did not feel comfortable speaking today.  [NU Hillel intends] to host further events that will bring speakers who present information and ideas in an open and free exchange in which students can listen, weigh information, and perhaps even learn from the speaker and one another.

Eid's talk would no doubt have contested the assumptions of many students at Hillel, taking them out of their comfort zone on Israel issues including the occupation.  Hillel International has been challenged -- quite appropriately, in my opinion --for its restrictive policies on outside speakers, but NU Hillel is still a place where criticism of Israel can be received politely and debated vigorously. Whatever one thinks of Eid's positions -- which can be equally controversial among Israelis and Palestinians -- can there be any doubt that he should have been able to present them, if only for the sake of academic and intellectual freedom?

It is understandable that speakers such as Bassam Eid cause much unhappiness in the BDS movement, as they expose the deep flaws and counterproductive aspects of the anti-normalization stance.  If more activists understood the actual goals, and in some cases tactics, of BDS, I imagine there would be much less support for it on American campuses.

Harvard Corporate Governance Fellowship

From an email message which I received recently:

The Harvard Law School Program on Corporate Governance is seeking applications from highly qualified candidates who are interested in working with the Program as post-doctoral fellows or senior associates in the fields of corporate governance and/or law and finance. It is an excellent opportunity for someone with a corporate law or similar background who is interested in a career as a law professor or other pursuits in academia. Applications will be considered on a rolling basis. Any candidates who are interested in the Fellowship or would like more information are very welcome to email the coordinator of the Program, at coordinator@corpgov.law.harvard.edu. For more information about the position, including required qualifications and application materials, please visit the program website.

St. John's Law Seeks Associate Dean For Graduate Studies

This just in:

St. John's Law School is now looking for an Assistant or Associate Dean for Graduate Studies, who will be the senior administrator responsible for the development and management of initiatives related to post-J.D. degrees and programs at the Law School. The ADGS will oversee four existing LL.M. programs: (1) U.S. Legal Studies for Foreign Trained Lawyers (which qualifies graduates to sit for the New York bar exam); (2) Transnational Legal Practice; (3) International Sports Law Practice; and (4) Bankruptcy. We are looking for candidates with a strong entrepreneurial spirit and keen business sense to develop new degree programs and opportunities as market conditions permit. This is primarily a leadership/management position and will not lead to a tenure-track appointment. The ADGS will develop linkages and partnerships with foreign and domestic educational institutions, bar associations, law firms, and other institutions. The ADGS will also be the senior administrator in the graduate programs area and will manage an office that includes three directors (including one who spends significant time recruiting students in Asia), an office assistant, and a Europe-based consultant.

A J.D. (or J.D.-equivalent from a foreign jurisdiction) and admission to practice law in at least one U.S. jurisdiction and/or significant experience in higher education administration is required.

Interested candidates should submit letters of inquiry and CVs to lawfac@stjohns.edu.

Call for Contributions - Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Tax Opinions

bumping to the front; February 29 deadline for applications

The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project seeks contributors of rewritten judicial opinions and commentary on those opinions for an edited collection entitled Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Tax Opinions. This edited volume, to be published by Cambridge University Press, is part of a collaborative project among law professors and others to rewrite, from a feminist perspective, key judicial decisions. The initial volume, Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court, edited by Kathryn M. Stanchi, Linda L. Berger, and Bridget J. Crawford, will be published in 2016 by Cambridge University Press. (That book’s Introduction and Table of Contents are available here.) Subsequent volumes in the series will focus on different courts or different subject matters. This call is for contributions to a volume of tax decisions rewritten from a feminist perspective.

Tax volume editors Bridget Crawford and Anthony Infanti seek prospective authors for 8 to 10 rewritten tax-related opinions covering a range of topics. Authors are welcome to suggest cases of their own choosing or to consult the editors or others for ideas. All tax-related cases are appropriate for rewriting. Possible cases from U.S. courts are listed here, but that is not an exhaustive list. Cases may come from any jurisdiction and any court, including non-U.S. jurisdictions. The volume editors conceive of feminism as a broad movement concerned with justice and equality, and welcome proposals to rewrite cases in a way that bring into focus issues such as gender, race, class, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, and immigration status.

As the core of the Feminist Judgments Project is judicial opinions, proposals must be either to (1) rewrite a case (not administrative guidance, regulations, etc.) or (2) comment on a rewritten case. Rewritten opinions may be re-imagined majority opinions, dissents, or concurrences, as appropriate to the court. Feminist judgment writers will be bound by law and precedent in effect at the time of the original decision (with a 10,000 word maximum for the rewritten judgment). Commentators will explain the original court decision, how the feminist judgment differs from the original judgment, and what difference the feminist judgment might have made (4,000 word maximum for the commentary). Commentators and opinions writers who wish to work together are welcome to indicate that in the application.

In suggesting possible cases for rewriting, the volume editors have had the input and advice of an Advisory Panel of distinguished U.S. scholars including Alice Abreu (Temple), Patricia Cain (Santa Clara), Joseph Dodge (Florida State), Mary Louise Fellows (Minnesota), Wendy Gerzog (Baltimore), Steve Johnson (Florida State), Marjorie Kornhauser (Tulane), Ajay Mehrotra (American Bar Foundation, Northwestern), Beverly Moran (Vanderbilt), Richard Schmalbeck (Duke), Nancy Shurtz (Oregon), Nancy Staudt (Washington University), and Lawrence Zelenak (Duke).

The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project approaches revised judicial opinion writing as a form of critical socio-legal scholarship. There are several world-wide projects engaged in similar efforts, including the U.K.-based Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice (2010); Australian Feminist Judgments: Righting and Rewriting Law (2014); the Women’s Court of Canada; ongoing projects in Ireland, New Zealand, and a pan-European project; and other U.S.-based projects currently under way.

Those who are interested in rewriting an opinion or providing the commentary on one of the rewritten tax cases should fill out an application here.

Applications are due by February 29, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. eastern. Editors expect to notify accepted authors and commentators by April 15, 2016. First drafts of rewritten opinions will be due on August 15, 2016. First drafts of commentary will be due on September 15, 2016.

University of Hawaii Law Hiring

The University of Hawaii has has several openings for tenure track faculty.  There is a tight time line for applications.  Applications close March 4.

LSAC and Predicting Applicants for 2016-17, Part 10

The LSAC is reporting that "As of 02/12/16, there are 226,167 applications submitted by 34,732 applicants for the 2016–2017 academic year. Applicants are up 1.0% and applications are up 0.7% from 2015–2016.  Last year at this time, we had 62% of the preliminary final applicant count."  Based on this preliminary data, one would predict that there will be around 56, 019 applicants for 2016-17.

The last post in this series is here.  The next post in this series is here.