The Faculty Lounge

Peking University School of Transnational Law Dean Search

Peking University School of Transnational Law (“STL”) invites applications and nominations for Dean of the law school, to assume office on August 1, 2018.  STL offers China’s only Common Law Juris Doctor program and the world’s only Common Law J.D./China law Juris Master dual degree program.  STL also offers an LL.M. for international students with a first degree in law.  STL admitted its first students in 2008.

Peking University (“PKU”) is commonly regarded as China’s leading university and as one of the world’s great research universities.  STL is located on PKU’s Shenzhen Graduate School Campus, which includes PKU’s HSBC Business School, School of Electronic and Computer Engineering, School of Chemical Biology and Biotechnology, School of Advanced Materials, School of Environment and Energy, School of Urban Planning and Design, and School of Humanities and Social Sciences. PKU’s Shenzhen Campus is part of a larger “University Town” that includes the Shenzhen campuses of Tsinghua University and Harbin Institute of Technology, two of China’s other leading research universities.  STL occupies a new state-of-the-art Kohn Pederson Fox-designed law school building.

Shenzhen is renowned as China’s “Silicon Valley,” home to information and biotechnology start-ups and such innovative giants as Tencent, Huawei, BGI, BYD, and DJI Drones.  Just forty years ago Shenzhen was a small fishing and farming community; today it is a city of almost 20 million.  The April 2017 The Economist declared Shenzhen “one of the world’s most innovative cities,” noting that Shenzhen alone accounts for more high quality international patents than either Great Britain or France, and that Shenzhen alone is responsible for nearly 50 percent of the international patents filed from China annually.  The World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO’s) Global Innovation Index (GII) announced in June 2017 that Shenzhen-Hong Kong has surpassed California’s Silicon Valley.

Together, Shenzhen and Hong Kong form the hub of the world’s most populous metropolitan area, China’s Pearl River Delta, where Chinese and Western legal and commercial traditions are meeting and merging in ways likely to preview future legal developments throughout China and the rest of the world as China’s global economic influence grows. 

STL’s founding dean was Jeffrey Lehman, a former president of Cornell University and dean of the University of Michigan Law School, who has served since 2012 as the Founding Vice Chancellor of NYU Shanghai.  Lehman was succeeded by Philip McConnaughay, a former dean of Penn State University’s Schools of Law and International Affairs, professor of law at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and partner of Morrison & Foerster, who is stepping down in July 2018 after a sustained period of significant growth for the law school.  STL’s multinational resident and visiting faculty includes world-renowned scholars and practitioners.

Raymond Nimmer (1944-2018)

I was saddened to hear of the recent passing of Raymond Nimmer, a long time faculty member, Associate Dean, and Dean of the University of Houston Law Center, and national and international leader in the areas of commercial and information technology law. He was one of my first contacts in American legal academia when I was a junior scholar in Australia and we had lengthy and always illuminating email conversations about personal property securities law and information technology law for many years. He was a respected mentor and friend, and I am grateful for the time I spent as his colleague in Houston. The impact he had on the fields he worked in will endure for years to come. 

Financing the University Press of Kentucky

As I explained yesterday, Kentucky's Governor Matt Bevin has proposed closing the University Press of Kentucky, which would evidently save the state $672,000 per year (that being the full amount of the annual subsidy, which pays the salaries of 16 employees).

Yesterday's post compared the cost of the press to the salary of John Calipari, the head basketball coach of the Kentucky Wildcats. I thought it would also be interesting to look at the compensation of head football coach Mark Stoops, whose teams do not compete every year for the national championship.  You can see his 25 page contract here.

Stoops's basic compensation, which includes extra money for a university-arranged  media contract, was $2,000,000 for the first year, rising to at least $2,400,000 in the fifth year.  He also receives performance incentives that include $100,000 for each win in the SEC (except the first one).  Thus, he got another $300,000 for last year's mediocre 4-4 record.  In addition, Stoops got another $50,000 for taking his team to the second-tier Music City Bowl.

There are other performance incentives in the contract -- for playing in a major bowl, winning the SEC division, being selected coach of the year -- which could have gotten Stoops another $500,000 or so, but they were all unattained.

To be fair, the Stoops contract also includes incentives for academics, although they are not very demanding. He gets $25,000 if his players achieve a cumulative grade point average of 2.75 (B-), and another $25,000 if they achieve an "Academic Progress Rate" of .950.  I was able to determine that they hit at least the latter goal in 2017, although just barely, and the football team had the lowest APR score of any team at the university.

The upshot is that Stoops got $400,000 in incentive pay alone, for his team's modest accomplishments on and off the field.  That money would cover well over half of the budget for the University Press of Kentucky.

There is an additional question about the ethics of coaches' incentive pay in a collision sport like football, especially when it accumulates game by game.  With $100,000 on the line for every SEC victory, a coach could easily be motivated to ignore player safety in the closing minutes of a tight game. Of course, no coach would ever admit doing that, but the field of professional ethics is predicated on eliminating such tempting conflicts of interest. But that discussion is for another day.

 

CFP -- Feminist Judgments: Employment Discrimination Cases Rewritten

The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project seeks contributors to rewrite judicial opinions to reflect feminist perspectives, and commentaries on the rewritten opinions, for an edited book collection tentatively titled Feminist Judgments: Employment Discrimination Opinions Rewritten. This edited volume is part of a collaborative project among law professors and other legal specialists to rewrite, from feminist perspectives, key judicial decisions in the United States. 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, was published in 2016 by Cambridge University Press. Cambridge University Press has published the first volume in the series, Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Tax Opinions (2017).  Other approved volumes in the series include family law and reproductive justice. Cambridge University Press welcomes proposals for additional volumes in the series that focus on other areas of law.  

The Employment Discrimination volume will be edited by Ann McGinley and Nicole Porter. We seek prospective authors for a number of employment discrimination opinions, listed below.[1] We have selected the cases with the goal of creating a body of cases that can be largely internally consistent and that ultimately would improve employment discrimination law from feminist perspectives. Opinion authors will be given the freedom to choose how to rewrite their opinions from various feminist perspectives. The volume editors will provide initial guidance on how the rewritten opinions might have improved the outcomes for all women (and some men), regardless of the particular feminist approach taken by the author of the rewritten opinion. We are open to your ideas, and would love to discuss them and our own ideas with you. We are particularly interested in opinions that use intersectional and multidimensional analyses, and that recognize the rich diversity of individuals who are protected by the employment discrimination laws.

Interested prospective contributors should submit a proposal to either: (1) rewrite an opinion (subject to a 10,000 word limit, including footnotes), or (2) comment on a rewritten opinion (4,000 word limit, including footnotes). Unlike the original volume, and because we seek to create a body of consistent opinions, all rewritten opinions should be written as majority opinions of the court, without regard to whether political or practical considerations would have permitted the author to achieve an actual majority at the time of the original opinion. Authors of rewritten opinions will be bound by the law and precedent in effect and supplemental materials available at the time of the original decision. Commentators should explain the original court decision and its context, how the feminist judgment differs from the original judgment, and what difference a feminist judgment might have made. Commentators may also explain how the rewritten opinion would have changed the law, for example, by noting subsequent cases that would not have been decided or would have been decided differently, if the rewritten opinion had been adopted.

Those who are interested in rewriting an opinion or providing commentary should apply no later than February 12, 2018, by e-mailing the following information to Ann McGinley, ann.mcginley@unlv.edu and Nicole Porter, nicole.porter2@utoledo.edu:

1. Your CV, your areas of employment discrimination interest or expertise, and why you are interested in and well suited to participate in this project. We are committed to including authors and commentators from diverse backgrounds and encourage applications from authors representing traditionally marginalized groups (for example, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or status within the academy). If you feel an aspect of your personal identity is important to your work on this project, please feel free to include that information. 

2. Your top three preferences from the list of proposed cases below, whether you propose to write a commentary or a feminist majority opinion; and

3. Any time constraints and other obligations that may impact your ability to meet the submission deadlines.

The editors will inform selected authors and commentators by February 26, 2018. After we have selected the authors and commentators, and the authors have had an opportunity to begin thinking about their drafts, we plan to host a Feminist Judgments Writing Workshop at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Boyd School of Law on April 20 and 21, 2018. All authors, commentators, and members of the Advisory Board are invited and urged to attend. Selection of authors does not depend on their ability or willingness to attend the April workshop. Draft opinions will be due by June 30, 2018. Draft commentaries will be due by August 15, 2018. If review and approval takes longer than expected, we may have to extend these deadlines, as we do not expect authors to begin to draft opinions until after the publisher has accepted the proposal for publication.

See below the fold for the list of proposed cases.

The Tet Offensive and the Laws of War

Today marks the 50^th anniversary of the Tet Offensive, a major turning point in the Vietnam War.  Tet is primarily remembered as the event that exposed the Johnson Administration’s failed war policy in Vietnam. But Tet also had a lasting impact on guerrilla tactics, a legacy that has had disturbing ramifications for the laws of war.

On the night of January 30, 1968, about 80,000 North Vietnamese Army troops and Viet Cong guerrillas launched a massive assault on over 100 American and South Vietnamese military bases and government facilities throughout South Vietnam. A squad of Viet Cong troops even made it onto the grounds of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, engaging in a sustained firefight with U.S. Marines and U.S. Army soldiers. The next day television footage of dead Viet Cong troops sprawled across the embassy grounds led news broadcasts in the United States and across the world.

Save the University Press of Kentucky

As reported by Inside Higher Ed, Kentucky’s Governor Matt Bevin has proposed closing the University Press of Kentucky, along with many other small state programs, as part of a sweeping budget-cutting measure.  UPK is widely admired for its publications in regional, Civil War, and Military history.  A relatively small press, with only about 50 books per year, UPK has won twelve Frederick Jackson Turner awards, which speaks to the extremely high quality of its work.  UPK is also unusual in that it is affiliated with multiple in-state universities and colleges, and not exclusively with the University of Kentucky.

UPK is not the first university press to come under fire.  In 2012, the new president of the University of Missouri announced plans to close the University of Missouri Press, which is another high-quality regional press – having published important works on Langston Hughes and Mark Twain.  A public uproar saved the press and its $400,000 annual subsidy from the university.

The Kentucky University Press receives a somewhat larger state subsidy of $672,000, which pays the salaries of all 16 employees.  All other expenses are covered through book sales.

University presses are often attractive targets for budget hawks, as many of their publications are highly specialized, and often quite esoteric.  Scholars, of course, recognize the importance of publishing academic work that is often the product of decades of research.  While the more prominent university presses – such as Oxford, Harvard, Chicago, Cambridge, California, Yale, and some others – are not in danger, the smaller presses play an equally important role in disseminating new and meaningful scholarship.

Academic presses may cost their home institution a little money, but they embody the very purpose of the university, which is to expand knowledge through research and teaching. And the cost is relatively trivial, compared to other expenditures.  In the year before the attempt to eliminate the University of Missouri Press, the school spent $72 million to renovate its football stadium, and continued spending millions on improvements ever since; another $98 million expansion was approved just last year.

The annual salary of the University of Kentucky basketball coach John Calipari, under a recent extension, reaches $8 million, which is roughly 200 times the average pay of a UPK employee.  Yes, an editor appears to be worth about one half of one percent of the basketball coach. Stated otherwise, Calipari could finance the entire UPK budget and still keep 92% of his pay.

Yes, I realize there are more basketball fans than academic book readers, probably by many orders of magnitude. But it is still a sad university that cannot finance an esteemed press with funding that amounts to loose change in its athletic budget.

ADDENDUM: The contracts for all of the University of Kentucky coaches (at all levels in all sports) can be found here.  For example, the football team's tight ends coach earns $275,000, and the defensive backs coach earns $3000,000.  Salaries are much lower in the "non-revenue" sports -- which, of course, are subsidized as is the university press -- but they are still higher than most editors. The head swimming coach earns $112,500, and an assistant track and field coach earns $87,000.  The two rifle coaches earn a combined $150,000.  All of the coaches get extra money for university-arranged media appearances, and they are eligible for performance incentives of up to about 20% of base salaries.

ADDENDUM 2: The nine strength and conditioning coaches, who evidently work across all sports, receive a combined $900,000 annually, with additional incentives that can bring the total to over 150% of the budget for the University Press of Kentucky. 

Inman Page

For the first time in forever I'm actually working on new scholarship -- an essay about Melissa Milewski's important book on litigation by African American plaintiffs during Jim Crow.  And of course I'm re-reading Ralph Ellison's work on African Americans' appeal to the rule of law, particularly his "Going to the Territory."  Inman N. Page, a graduate of Brown University and later the head of the segregated school in Oklahoma City, looms large in that essay -- in part because Ellison gave that address in honor of Page at Brown, where Page had studied. (Ellison was taught by Page more than fifty years before he gave the 1979 address at Brown).  This is yet another example of the unexpected outdoing itself in its power to surprise.  That led me to think about my trip back to OKC around 2011 when I took some photos of the now-abandoned Douglass-Woodson School in Oklahoma City.  Maybe my favorite picture, though, is the plaque on the Douglass building listing Inman Page as the head of the separate schools.

I'm looking forward to talking more about this essay review; but right now, back to the garage to assemble the pieces of it.

UC Irvine Law Review Moving to Submission Format

The news in the law review world these days is the UC Irvine Law Review, which has been operating on an symposium format, is moving to open submissions.  Their website has more information on this.

Nixon's Legal Battle with the NY Times and Washington Post

On Saturday afternoon I saw the outstanding new Steven Spielberg movie, "The Post." I highly recommend it, even though there is one important historical omission in the film.

The movie tells the story of the Washington Post's famous 1971 decision to publish the Pentagon Papers, a top secret study of the Vietnam War that exposed the government's long history of lying to the country about the stalemated nature of the conflict. Daniel Ellsberg, a former Marine officer and Rand Corporation analyst, leaked the classified study to the New York Times and later to the Post. The Times was the first to publish, setting in motion a dramatic showdown with President Richard Nixon.

The acting is terrific, particularly Meryl Streep as the Post's publisher Katherine Graham, the hero of the story. Against the advice of her lawyers, but with the enthusiastic support of her editors and reporters, Graham decided to publish excerpts of the classified study. The decision was legally and financially risky because, just two days earlier, the Nixon Administration had succeeded in securing a court order to enjoin the Times from continuing to publish its bombshell stories on the Pentagon Papers. Moreover, less than 24 hours after the Washington Post began to run its own Pentagon Papers stories, the Nixon Administration secured a temporary restraining order against the Post. 

Why Ending Gerrymandering May Benefit the GOP

The most important election law case before the United States Supreme Court this term is Gill v. Whitford, a partisan gerrymandering case from Wisconsin. In 2011 the Republican legislature drew the state’s district lines with the goal of building an insurmountable partisan advantage for the GOP. The 2011 Wisconsin redistricting plan packed Democratic voters into districts in the Madison and Milwaukee areas while evenly dispersing Republican voters over the rest of the state’s districts. The results were predictable. In the subsequent round of state Assembly races, Republican candidates garnered less than half the popular vote, but they won 60% of the Assembly seats.

To be sure, it’s not just Republicans who engage in partisan redistricting. With a handful of exceptions, most states (red and blue alike) employ nakedly partisan criteria for legislative and congressional line drawing. Indeed, while it mulls the Gill case, the U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to a case out of Maryland, Benisek v. Lamone, in which Republican plaintiffs have challenged the Democratic legislature’s 2011 redistricting plan.

But there is no doubt that in the 2010s, partisan redistricting has benefited Republicans far more than Democrats. Sweeping Republican state house victories in 2010 gave the GOP control of a critical mass of legislatures during the crucial 2011 session, when every state conducted its decennial redrawing of legislative and congressional district lines following the U.S. Census. Republicans also reaped the benefits of new and highly advanced computer programs that made the art of the partisan gerrymander more potent than ever before.

For Men in the Legal Academy Who Want to Help Fight Sexism

Men in the legal academy, if you want to help fight sexism...

...do cite good scholarship by women. Empirically survey your own footnotes before sending in that manuscript....don't accept invites to speak on panels without racial and gender balance. Ask the question before accepting....do call out other men who speak over women in faculty meetings.

...do ask each law review that offers to publish your article about the racial and gender balance of the authors the journal has published in the last five years.

...do advocate for key committee leadership by women of all colors, men of all colors and other minority groups. Faculty hiring might look a wee bit different.

...do look at racial and gender salary disparities on your own faculty, if the information is publicly available. Ask questions. In. Front. Of. Everyone.

...don't close your office door fully when meeting with any students, especially women.  In confidential situations, draw the door partially closed and speak quietly.

...don't date students.  If you respect women, men, and yourself, you can wait until after graduation.

...don't call on a female student to give the "woman's perspective;" don't call on a student of color to give the "black/brown/Asian/other" perspective.  No one speaks for an entire group. No one student should carry the burden of educating the rest of the class. You're the teacher.

...don't wait for a student to raise issues of gender, race, class, sexuality.  Lead by example and signal that these issues can be important.

...when teaching Crim Law, do remember that there are rape survivors in your classroom. They are not snowflakes; they are strong; but be considerate.

...don't comment on any student's appearance. If the student needs some friendly advice about what is or is not appropriate clothing for class or interviews, there's a Dean of Students for a reason.

...do instruct moot court judges that they are not to comment on students' appearances. If there are concerns that could hurt the student's career, rely again on the Dean of Students, not the moot court judges, to convey the info.

...don't call a mixed-gender group of staff or students "guys" (e.g., don't say, "Have the guys in the IT department check your computer," when there are women who work in the IT department, too.)

...do object to the use of the word "guys" to refer to a mixed-gender group of students, colleagues, staff (e.g., "Those guys did a great job"). Your vocal objection to the use of "guys" in a case like this would be a rare instance in which "mansplaining" is welcome, especially to other men. Don't make it women's work to be the ones who remind everyone else of the importance of gender-neutral language. Your school may even have a policy on it.

 

(cross-post from FeministLawProfs.com, here)

Thank you to Al

I am very grateful to Al Brophy for the invitation to enter The Faculty Lounge for a spell. It is an honor to participate in a conversation that I have followed for years as a reader. During my stay, I plan to write about my areas of scholarly focus, which are election law, national security law, and legal history. I will also write a bit about two of my principal teaching areas, civil procedure and evidence. There is certainly no shortage of interesting legal topics to write about during this tumultuous and fascinating period in our nation’s history. Thank you for spending time in The Faculty Lounge with me.

Anthony Gaughan Stepping into Faculty Lounge

It's my pleasure to announce that Anthony Gaughan of Drake University's law school is stepping into the lounge to sit with us for a spell.  Professor Gaughan teaches in the areas of Election Law, Civil Procedure, National Security Law, Evidence.  I know him the old fashioned way -- through his scholarship, particularly his book The Last Battle of the Civil War: United States versus Lee, 1861-1883 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2011).  Welcome!

Perspectives on the Judge’s Comments at Larry Nasser’s Sentencing

Once again the headlines bring us subtle ethics questions, this time in judicial ethics.  Carissa Hessick has a very thoughtful discussion over at Prawfsblawg of the issues raised by some of Michigan Judge Rosemarie Aquilina’s comments during Larry Nasser’s sentencing hearing.  As everyone knows, Dr. Nasser pleaded guilty to multiple counts of sexual assault after molesting scores of girls and young women, many of them elite athletes, over the course of many years while pretending to provide them medical treatment.  In particular, there has been widespread debate over the propriety of Judge Aquilina’s remark, made in the middle of the proceedings:

Our Constitution does not allow for cruel and unusual punishment.  If it did, I have to say, I might allow what he did to all of these beautiful souls—these young women in their childhood—I would allow someone or many people to do to him what he did to others.

As Prof. Hessick observes, “[t]his is a remarkable statement by a judge, but this is also a remarkable case.”  She contends that the statement was nevertheless improper, for the reason that it contravenes the judge’s public role and image as a “neutral arbiter” during sentencing.  (She also concludes that current law may offer no remedy for the impropriety other than public criticism, but does not clearly suggest whether she thinks it should.)

Prof. Hessick rejects the notion that the judge’s proper role encompasses expressing “the people’s outrage” at sentencing, arguing that this job is the prosecution’s alone.  She points out, quite correctly, that acting as a voice of public disapprobation is hard to reconcile with the principle of judicial ethics enjoining impartiality in “all duties of judicial office.”  This is an important point, and it makes the issue difficult. But as discussed below, I think she gives the point undue weight and scope.  I discuss why after the jump.

Michigan Law Review Elects First African American EIC

The Detroit Free Press has the news that Megan Brown has just been elected editor in chief of the Michigan Law Review.  Ms. Brown is the MLR’s first African American EIC.

And in related news I guess that means it’s time to submit articles. Ladies and gentlemen, start your word processors.

Love in Vain

The original, by Robert Johnson, recorded in 1937:

The Rolling Stones, live in 1969:

The Thirteenth Amendment and Freedom of Contract

 

When the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, it altered the fundamental principles underlying our country’s labor and employment law.  Prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, the paradigm of labor and employment law was unfree labor.  The Thirteenth Amendment replaced that paradigm of unfree labor with one of freedom of contract. 

The most obvious example of unfree labor in the antebellum United States was the institution slavery.  Slaves were under the complete control of the “masters” who exploited their labor.  Under the laws of slave states, slaves were treated as property and denied the most basic of human rights.  But slaves were not the only unfree workers in antebellum America.  Thousands of immigrants came to the United States as indentured servants, bound to their employers for terms of years and subject to criminal sanctions if they left those employers.  Other workers served as apprentices who were also bound to their masters for a term of years.  Early industrial workers were often required to sign year-long contracts, bound to their employers regardless of the wages and conditions of work.  These workers were unable to leave exploitative employers and thus lacked any means to improve their wages and conditions of work.

During the antebellum era, many anti-slavery activists argued that slavery violated fundamental human rights.  Above all, slaves were denied the right to free contracts.  They could not enter into contracts with employers, were prohibited from engaging in most commercial transactions (especially real estate transactions), and were often denied the right to enter into marriage contracts.  Anti-slavery activists generally agreed that freed slaves should enjoy the right to contract.  For many, the right to contract was a central feature of their antislavery ideology.  The Thirteenth Amendment also extended the right to free contracts to northern workers by abolishing “involuntary servitude” as well as slavery. 

But what did the right to contract mean?  Did it mean a formal right to contract without government assistance?  Or did the right to contract include the right to government intervention to equalize bargaining power and protect against exploitation?

Some members of the Reconstruction Congress believed that the formal right to contract was sufficient absent government support.   Many Freedman’s Bureau officials agreed, allowing former slaves to enter into contracts with their former masters without sufficient oversight of exploitative contracts.

However, a majority of the Reconstruction Congress chose the latter approach.  Immediately after the Thirteenth Amendment became law, members of the Reconstruction Congress began to enact legislation enforcing the right to free contracts.  Their primary focus was employment contracts.  The 1866 Civil Rights Act, which prohibited race discrimination in contracts, was targeted at southern Black laws that attempted to impose involuntary servitude on newly freed slaves.  The 1867 Anti-Peonage Act prohibited workers from either voluntarily or involuntarily entering into contracts which amounted to indentured servitude.  The 1868 Eight Hours Act limited the hours of work of federal employees.  All of the laws enhanced the power of workers to enter into fair and free contracts.

The debate over the meaning of freedom of contract continued into the Twentieth Century.  More on that later.

 

CFP: Warren Burger Prize

This just in:

The American Inns of Court invites judges, lawyers, professors, students, scholars, and other authors to participate in the competition. Please submit an original, unpublished, essay of 10,000 to 20,000 words on a topic of your choice addressing issues of legal excellence, civility, ethics, and professionalism. The author of the winning essay will receive a cash prize of $5,000.  The essay will be published in the South Carolina Law Review.  The prize will be presented to the recipient at the American Inns of Court annual Celebration of Excellence at the Supreme Court of the United States.  Submissions are due July 1, 2018.

Details here.

Hawaii Law Seeks Environmental Law Faculty

This just in:

 The University of Hawai`i William S. Richardson School of Law seeks applicants for a tenured or tenure-track faculty position to begin in the 2018-2019 academic year in its Environmental Law Program (ELP). The position has an energy law focus, specifically on innovative renewable/clean energy, utility regulation, and sustainability and resiliency law and policy. Such focus includes issues of particular importance to the Hawai`i/Pacific/Island communities such as energy from solar, ocean, wind, geothermal, and biofuels, and the intersection with climate change, renewable transportation, carbon budgets/markets, natural resources, indigenous rights, environmental justice, and human rights, at the local, regional, national, and international levels. His or her primary teaching, scholarship, and service responsibilities will center on the areas of energy, environmental, and administrative law. The successful candidate will oversee the Law School’s energy law curriculum and projects under the ELP as well as assist with other ELP program priorities. Further information as well as qualifications sought for the position can be found at http://workatuh.hawaii.edu/Jobs/NAdvert/28263/4727312/1/postdate/desc.

E-mail applications preferred to: lssearch@hawaii.edu, William S. Richardson School of Law, Attention: Appointments Committee Chair Professor Nicholas Mirkay, 2515 Dole Street, Room 220, Honolulu, HI 96822; Inquiries: Appointments Committee Chair Professor Nicholas Mirkay; 808-956-9435; namirkay@hawaii.edu.

 

Universities Studying Slavery Conference, Hollins College April 2018

The Universities Studying Slavery Consortium will meet next at Hollins College in Roanoke, Virginia, on April 12-14.  Registration, hotel, and other information is available at the conference website.