The Faculty Lounge

AALS Section on Election Law Award Winners

From Joshua Sellers, the Chair of the AALS Section on Election Law:

The AALS Section on Election Law is pleased to announce the winners of its annual awards.

The John Hart Ely Prize in the Law of Democracy

This award is presented annually by the executive committee of the AALS Section on Election Law to a senior scholar in the field for his or her “extraordinary lifetime contributions to the study of election law and the law of democracy in the United States.” This year’s recipient is Daniel Lowenstein (UCLA).

Distinguished Scholarship Award in Election Law

This award is presented annually in recognition of “a single work that exemplifies excellence in the field and that is published in a given year.” Winners are chosen by a scholarship selection committee which, in some years, additionally awards an honorable mention. Because no award was given last year, this year the Section decided to recognize winners for the past two years.

The winner for 2025 is Travis Crum (Wash U – St. Louis) for his article, The Unabridged Fifteenth Amendment, 133 Yale Law Journal 1039 (2024).

The winner for 2024 is Jacob Eisler (Florida State) for his book “The Law of Freedom: The Supreme Court and Democracy” (Cambridge University Press, 2023).

The selection committee also decided to award an honorable mention to Nicholas Stephanopoulos (Harvard) for his book “Aligning Election Law” (Oxford University Press, 2024).

The winners will be recognized at the 2025 AALS Annual Meeting.

AALS Indian Nations & Indigenous Peoples Section Call for Papers

The Indian Nations and Indigenous Peoples Section of the American Association of Law Schools (AALS) invites paper proposals on the following topic. How do Indian Tribes, First Nations, and other Indigenous Peoples regulate same-sex marriage, same-sex relationships, and adoption and foster parenting by same-sex couples and LGBT individuals? What role does evidence of Tribal culture and tradition, if any, play in these decisions? Additionally, what are the processes by which Tribes change their laws with respect to same-sex relationships? More broadly, we are interested in the ways in which Tribes, First Nations and other Indigenous Peoples regulate sexuality and family structure.

Please send proposals of 500 to 1000 words summarizing a paper or work-in-progress you would present on an AALS panel on these issues. The selected panelists will be invited to present their work in a joint program of the Indian Nations and Indigenous Peoples and the Law and Anthropology Section, which will be co-sponsored by the Family Law Section. The Program will be held at the AALS Annual Meeting, January 6-10, 2016. Selected papers will be published in the William Mitchell Law Review. Please submit your proposal on or before September 1, 2015 to Michalyn Steele, Chair-Elect, at [email protected]. Questions can also be directed to Ann Tweedy, Chair, at [email protected].

CFP: Sex and Death: Gender and Sexuality Matters in Trusts and Estates

The AALS Section on Trusts and Estates and AALS Section on Women in Legal Education will hold a joint program, Sex and Death: Gender and Sexuality Matters in Trusts and Estates, during the AALS 2016 Annual Meeting in New York City.  They are soliciting proposals for presentations between now and August 21.  From the CFP:

Submissions should be of an abstract of scholarship relating to the overlap between sex, gender, or sexuality and trusts and estates.  Potential topics include implications of same-sex marriage, assisted reproduction and property rights, feminist legal theory applied to property transmission or tax, or any other matter examining the intersection between sex and death.  Abstracts should be between 750 and 2000 words, inclusive of any footnotes. Scholarship may be at any stage of the publication process from work-in-progress to completed article, but if already published, scholarship may not be published any earlier than 2014. Each professor may submit only one abstract for consideration.

Full-time faculty members of AALS member and fee-paid law schools are eligible to submit proposals. Foreign, visiting (and not full-time on a different faculty) and adjunct faculty members, graduate students, and fellows are not eligible. The deadline for submission is Friday, August 21, 2015.

To be considered, abstracts must be submitted electronically to Professor Wendy Greene, Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law, at [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> and Professor Alyssa DiRusso, Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law, at [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.  The deadline for submission is Friday, August 21, 2015. Authors of selected papers will be notified by September 25, 2015.  Call for Paper participants will also be responsible for paying their annual meeting registration fee and travel expenses.

Presenters will be selected after review by the Program Chairs of both sections.  Additional presenters may be solicited by the Program Chairs to insure a diverse panel.  Any inquiries about the Call for Papers should be submitted to: the Chair for the Section on Women in Legal Education, Professor Wendy Greene, Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law, 205.726.2419 or [email protected] and/or the Program Chair for the Section on Trusts and Estates, Professor Alyssa DiRusso, Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law, 205.726.4325 or [email protected].

Faculty Hiring: Willamette University College of Law

Willamette University College of Law seeks applicants for up to three full-time, tenure-track faculty positions beginning in the fall of 2016.  Both entry-level and junior lateral (1 to 3 years full-time, tenure-track teaching experience) candidates will be considered.  Our curricular interests include Trust & Estates, Commercial Law, Family Law, Bankruptcy, Financial Institutions, Employee Benefits, Health Law, Dispute Resolution, Torts, and Property.  Applicants must possess distinguished academic credentials and a proven, recent record of scholarship and scholarly interest.  The Faculty Appointments Committee will begin reviewing applications in the late summer and will continue to do so until the position is filled.  Believing that diversity contributes to academic excellence and to rich and rewarding communities, Willamette University is committed to recruiting and retaining a diverse faculty, staff and student body. We seek candidates, particularly those from historically underrepresented groups, whose work furthers diversity and who bring to campus varied experiences, perspectives and backgrounds.

Contact:  Please send letters of interest, a resume, a FAR form (if applicable), and copies of recent publications to:  Associate Dean Laura I Appleman, Chair, Faculty Appointments Committee, Willamette University College of Law, 245 Winter St., SE, Salem, Oregon 97301.  Email is preferred:  [email protected] . 

January 2016 AALS Meeting: Calls For Papers And Proposals

The AALS is currently posting a flock of calls for papers and proposals for the January 2016 meeting in New York.  We have made some mention of them individually, but together they include: 

Hot topic programs (due October 5)

The Corporate Law and Economics Revolution 40 Years Later: The Impact of Economics and Finance Scholarship on Modern Corporate Law (due August 27)

The Wounded Warrior Comes Home: Exploring the Impact of Disabled Veterans on Disability,
Health, and Other Law and Policy (due August 23)

Election Law at the Local Level (due August 15)

Local Laboratories of Workplace Regulation (due August 15)

The ADA at 25: Implications for People with Mental Disabilities (Proposed papers or abstracts of presentations should be submitted to Professor Fred Vars, Associate Professor of Law of Alabama Law by August 17.)

National Security Law Challenges for the Next Administration (due August 15)

Regulation of Mortgage Lending (due July 27)

The Future of Securities Regulation: Innovation, Regulation and Enforcement (due August 21)

CFP: AALS Program of the Section on Securities Regulation

Call for Papers
AALS Section on Securities Regulation - 2016 AALS Annual Meeting

January 6-10, 2016  New York, NY

The AALS Section on Securities Regulation invites papers for its program on “The Future of Securities Regulation:  Innovation, Regulation and Enforcement.”

TOPIC DESCRIPTION: This panel discussion will explore the current trends and future implications in the securities regulation field including transactional and financial innovation, the regulation of investment funds, the intersection of the First Amendment and securities law, the debate over fee-shifting bylaws, the ever-expanding transactional exemptions including under Regulation D, and judicial interpretations of insider trading laws.  The Executive Committee welcomes papers (theoretical, doctrinal, policy-oriented, empirical) on both the transactional and litigation sides of securities law and practice.

ELIGIBILITY: Full-time faculty members of AALS member law schools are eligible to submit papers. Pursuant to AALS rules, faculty at fee-paid law schools, foreign faculty, adjunct and visiting faculty (without a full-time position at an AALS member law school), graduate students, fellows, and non-law school faculty are not eligible to submit. Please note that all faculty members presenting at the program are responsible for paying their own annual meeting registration fee and travel expenses.  NOTE FURTHER, AALS has announced reduced registration fees for junior faculty for the 2016 conference.

PAPER SUBMISSION PROCEDURE: Up to four papers may be selected from this call for papers. There is no formal requirement as to the form or length of proposals. However, more complete drafts will be given priority over abstracts, and presenters are expected to have a draft for commentators two weeks prior to the beginning of the AALS conference.

Papers will be selected by the Section's Executive Committee in a double-blind review. Please submit only anonymous papers by redacting from the submission the author's name and any references to the identity of the author. The title of the email submission should read: "Submission - 2016 AALS Section on Securities Regulation."

Please email submissions to the Section Chair Christine Hurt at:  [email protected] on or before August 21, 2015.

AALS Call For Papers: Election Law At The Local Level

This just in:

The AALS Section on Election Law is is seeking abstracts or drafts of papers to be presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting in New York, NY. This year's program is entitled: Election Law at the Local Level.

Here the program description:

Although national election controversies grab the headlines, decisions made at the local level impact our elections in important ways – and even contribute to those national issues. Local and state actors play a front-line role in administering elections for all levels of government. This panel will focus on how local jurisdictions handle important issues such as ballot access, voting rights, early voting, Election Day processes, and post-election disputes. Panelists will explain how these issues relate to the smooth running of the election, and how they might impact the 2016 presidential election season. One panelist will be chosen from a Call for Papers.

Confirmed panelists include Jocelyn Benson (Wayne State), Rich Ford (Stanford), David Schleicher (Yale), and Trey Greyson (former Kentucky Secretary of State). We are looking for one additional panelist to join this distinguished group.

The program will take place on Friday, January 8, 2016 from 10:30 am-12:15 pm.

Please submit an abstract or draft paper to Section Chair Josh Douglas at [email protected]. The deadline is August 15, 2015.

AALS Section On Law & Sports Seeks Award Nominations

This just in:

The AALS Section on Law and Sports is pleased to announce the inaugural AALS Section on Law and Sports Award to recognize an individual that has made a substantial and significant contribution to scholarship, teaching, and/or service in the area of law relating to sports. Section members and other individuals are eligible for the award, but law schools, institutions, and organizations are not eligible to receive the award. A committee comprised of section members will consider all nominations and select a deserving recipient for recognition at the 2016 AALS Annual Meeting.

Please email nominations – and any supporting information – to Professor Dionne Koller at [email protected]. In your nomination, please provide an explanation as to how the nominee meets the criteria for the award. Nominations are due by August 1, 2015.

Request for Open-Submission Proposals for 2016 AALS Annual Meeting

The AALS has issued its Call for Proposals for Open-Submission Programs for the 2016 Annual Meeting.  There will be five types of open proposal programs at the 2016 Meeting.  Three categories - Crosscutting, Symposium, and Hot Topic programs - have featured in prior meetings.  Two - Discussion Group and Academy programs - are new this year.  Discussion Group programs provide a venue for informal discussion of topics among a larger group of participants than the typical annual meeting program.  Academy programs are open-submission programs that don't fit into any other category.  Have a great idea for a program at the Annual Meeting that doesn't fit into any other category?  Submit a proposal for an academy program.

I am Chair of the committee that will be reviewing the proposals, and would be happy to take questions in the comments (with the caveat that I might need to consult with others to answer some questions).  In prior years, RFPs for each type of program would come out separately.  This year, we combined all of the RFPs into one.  We also tried to be clear about the criteria that will be evaluate the proposals.

Ben Barros

Do We Need a Code of Ethical Conduct for the Academy?

Having taught government ethics for years (no comments necessary, I've heard them all), written about the subject, and even co-chaired a state bar task force on the same, I can’t help but keeping coming back to the article in the National Law Journal this past week about the “scandals” or questionable alleged behavior by members of the Academy. I couldn’t agree more with Prof. Deborah Rhode who talked about a climate of integrity on campus. I am careful to tell my students and those who attend government ethics CLE programs that vast majority of government officials are honest hard-working individuals and the same as can be said of my colleagues in the Academy. The very few who stray create an appearance of lack of integrity for everyone else.

The National Law Journal article focuses on the conduct of members of the Academy both inside and outside of the classroom or work environment. The take-away message we need to remember is that professors and administrators are people held to a higher ethical and moral standard because of the position of trust we have with our students and with the various constituencies we represent and steward on behalf of our schools. Just like government officials, K-12 classroom teachers and members of the clergy, our behaviors are subject to far greater scrutiny than the average member of the public. This stems both from our position as lawyers and from our position in the Academy. Despite the fact that the vast majority of us are people of integrity who do not misuse the position of trust, who conduct ourselves in accordance with the highest expectations of members of the bar (just think about what needs to be disclosed to state bar character and fitness committees), what must we do to counter the negative messaging from these hopefully “isolated” incidents?

When the heat is turned up on public officials, legislators and governors respond (with the support of the good government groups) with committees, hearings, and proposed legislative and regulatory reforms. Do we really need to go down this route? Do we need a formal code of professionalism? Membership in the AALS already requires in part that, “A member school shall attract and maintain a faculty of high competence…to provide ready professional relationships among the faculty and between the faculty and the students…” (see,By-Law Section 6.4) The AAUP Statement of Professional Ethics notes that professors should,”…avoid exploitation, harassment…of students.” Perhaps Chapter 4 of the Standards on Legal Education should be amended to include language about the expectations of professionalism on the part of the faculty when it comes to our students and the community.

Have we reached a tipping point with this NLJ article that demands conversations at the AALS, the ABA Section on Legal Education and AAUP? Do we need to spell out community norms beyond the obvious illegal nature of the alleged activities? Do we need a formal ethical code of conduct for the Academy that goes beyond the provisions cited above and transcends codes and rules adopted at individual campuses? How can we restore confidence in our integrity where the lapses of a small few cloud the environment for everyone else?

AALS Annual Meeting Panel Call for Papers: Perspectives on Privacy Law

The AALS Sections on Comparative Law, and on Defamation and Privacy will be sponsoring a joint program at the January 2016 Annual Meeting. The program will consider comparative perspectives on privacy law, particularly in light of recent developments in the European Union. The panel will comprise a combination of invited speakers, and speakers submitting proposals in response to this call for papers.

Paper proposals, works in progress, or completed papers are acceptable for submission. There is no formal requirement as to length of the proposal or final paper. Preference will be given to papers that offer novel scholarly insights on comparative aspects of privacy law. In particular proposals that share insights on comparative privacy practices outside the United States and the European Union will be welcomed. A paper may have already been accepted for publication as long as it will not be published prior to the Annual Meeting.

Proposals may focus on topics including, but not limited to, the following:

(a)  The interplay of law, norms, technology and market practices in protecting individual privacy.

(b)  Privacy interests in consumer and demographic information.

(c)   Privacy in relation to the protection of free speech.

(d)  Privacy rights given national security interests.

(e)  Health care and privacy.

(f)    Financial reporting and privacy.

(g)  Privacy in the context of law enforcement imperatives.

 Submissions can be accepted only from those affiliated with AALS member institutions.

 Please submit your paper or proposal by Friday, April 10, 2015 at 5:00 p.m E.S.T. to Professor Sudha Setty (Chair, AALS Section on Comparative Law), Western New England School of Law, [email protected] or to Professor Jacqueline Lipton (Chair, AALS Section on Defamation and Privacy), University of Akron School of Law, [email protected].

Griswold and Poverty

One of the many fascinating threads from the Constitutional Law panel at AALS on Griswold was the connection between the contraception cases and poverty law.  Cary Franklin spoke about the under-remembered aspect of Griswold as a poverty law case.  Griswold, after all, involved a birth control clinic: it was not just about access to birth control, but about the ability of poor women to access birth control. Prior to the Griswold decision in 1965, Connecticut and other states selectively enforced birth control laws against clinics, leaving wealthier women and couples free to violate the law with the help of their doctors.  Although the Court downplayed this aspect of the case, Franklin argued that the case should be read in the context of its time, when the Court was repeatedly challenging barriers to access for the poor to basic rights and social inclusion, including the rights to vote (Harper, 1966), to counsel in criminal cases (Gideon, 1963), to court transcripts (Griffin, 1956), and to travel (Shapiro, 1969).  It also occurred, I would add, in a time of increased federal legislative and administrative commitment to access to medical care for the poor (Medicaid, Community Health Centers) and to programs that supported child-rearing such as Head Start. 

Also on the panel, Melissa Murray discussed the forgotten contraception case of Trubek v. Ullman. Trubek was a parallel case to Poe v. Ullman and Doe v. Ullman, where the Court punted the topic to its future self by holding the challenges non-justiciable.  While Poe and Doe presented claims for contraceptive rights within traditional marriages, Trubek presented contraception as a component of a professional woman’s control over child bearing decisions and ability to work with her husband to balance work and family obligations.  Louise Trubek and her husband David were students at Yale Law School, and they made these issues central to their complaint, which the Connecticut Supreme Court had noted.  As Murray pointed out, the combined nature of liberty and equality claims was more fully apparent in Trubek than in either Poe or Griswold.  

Although Trubek did not, on its face, involve issues of poverty, for scholars and practitioners of poverty law it most certainly did:  Louise Trubek (now a Professor Emerita at Wisconsin Law School) has long been a leader in the field of poverty and public interest law (the casebook she co-authored with Julie Nice helped many of us teach Poverty Law through the post-welfare reform years of the 1990s and early 2000s). As Trubek herself discusses, the Connecticut litigation was specifically aimed at opening birth control clinics to serve the poor.  For women in poverty, the ability to plan child-bearing greatly increases their chances to escape poverty through paid labor.  The life-long social justice concerns that inspired Louise and David Trubek to join the litigation epitomized the intersection between gender and class justice that Cary Franklin argues has been lost from the popular history of Griswold.  By recovering this history, we may be reminded just how intertwined are the problems of class and gender freedom and equality, and how the de-emphasis of class discourse in constitutional law has inhibited gains in freedom and equality for women generally.

Notorious RBG

Sunday may have been Election Law Day at the AALS, but Saturday was RBG day.  Justice Ginsburg gave a moving introduction at the Women in Legal Education luncheon honoring her friend Herma Hill Kay, whose speech was equally inspiring.  The Justice also spoke about her own formative experiences and days in law school in her conversation with Wendy Williams at the subsequent Women in Legal Education and Legal History session. You can read the highlights of her talk here—including the confirmation of her good health and her mother-in-law’s advice for a good marriage (it helps to be a little deaf), which Justice Ginsburg also finds helpful in relations with her colleagues.  

The Justice also seemed to enjoy the panel presentations by the scholars studying women’s legal history, and contributed her own thoughts on the history of the post-suffrage movement.  She made particular note of how, when Chief Justice Taft and Congress forced the National Women’s Party to move its headquarters so that the Court could have the site for its present building, the NWP counsel, Burnita Shelton Matthews (who would become the first women on the federal bench), fought congressional efforts to pay less than fair market value and obtained what was at the time the highest condemnation payment by the U.S. government. (The headquarters moved to the final location, at left, which is now a museum preserving and celebrating the history of women’s suffrage and equality.) 

Institutional Affiliations of AALS Annual Meeting Speakers

Trying to find the panel on which one of my colleagues was speaking, I discovered that one can use the AALS conference app to search de facto for speakers by institutional affiliation, instead of by name.  After thinking and writing yesterday about folks making multiple appearances on conference panels (see here), I wondered what schools provide the most speakers for the AALS Annual Meeting.  My guess was that results would vary based on geography, budgets and faculty culture. 

I searched the conference program for appearances by speakers affiliated with law schools in two groups: (a) the top 50 schools law schools identified by Brian Leiter in his study (here) of "Top 70 Law Faculties in Scholarly Impact, 2007-2011;" and (b) those schools that have joined the AALS since 1980 that do not appear in the top 50 on the Leiter list.  I could have done a search by all AALS member schools, but even my procrastination techniques have their limits!  

Here are the schools with the number of speakers from the AALS 2015 Annual Meeting Program:

2015 AALS Speakers from Leiter Law School Reports Top 50 Law Faculties in Scholarly Impact, 2007-2011

Leiter Ranking	School	# Speakers
1	Yale University	12
2	Harvard University	14
3	University of Chicago	3
4	Stanford University	8
5	New York University	6
6	Columbia University	5
7	University of California, Irvine	7
8	Vanderbilt University	5
9	Cornell University	3
10	University of California, Berkeley	12
11	Duke University	4
	University of Pennsylvania	3
13	Northwestern University	5
14	University of California, Los Angeles	9
15	University of Michigan, Ann Arbor	3
16	George Washington University	18
	University of Virginia	4
18	Georgetown University	31
19	University of Minnesota, Minneapolis-St. Paul	9
	University of Texas, Austin	8
21	Boston University	3
	George Mason University	3
23	University of California, Davis	7
24	University of Southern California	3
	Yeshiva University, Cardozo Law School	5
26	Emory University	5
	Washington U University, St. Louis	6
28	University of Colorado, Boulder	5
	University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign	2
30	Ohio State University	5
	University of St. Thomas (Minnesota)	1
	Washington & Lee University	3
33	Florida State University	6
	Hofstra University	1
	Indiana University, Bloomington	10
	University of Arizona	0
	University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill	10
38	Case Western Reserve University	2
	University of California, Hastings	4
	University of Notre Dame	2
41	Brooklyn Law School	6
	College of William & Mary	5
43	Fordham University	5
	University of Maryland, Baltimore	8
45	University of Houston	7
	University of Nevada, Las Vegas	3
47	American University	20
	University of Alabama	0
	University of Iowa	4
	University of Pittsburgh	3
	University of Utah	5
	TOTAL	318

AALS 2015 Annual Meeting Speakers from New Member Schools Not in Leiter Top 50

Name of School (Year Joined AALS)	# speakers
University of Baltimore School of Law (AALS, 1988)	3
Chapman University School of Law (AALS, 2006)	3
City University of New York School of Law (AALS, 2008)	3
Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law (AALS, 2012)	3
Florida International University College of Law (AALS, 2009)	3
Georgia State University College of Law (AALS, 1995)	1
University of Hawaii William S. Richardson School of Law (AALS, 1989)	2
The University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law (AALS, 2001)	0
Mississippi College School of Law (AALS, 1990)	2
New England Law | Boston (AALS, 1998)	0
University of New Hampshire School of Law (AALS, 2014)	3
North Carolina Central University School of Law (AALS, 2012)	1
Northern Illinois University College of Law (AALS, 1985)	0
Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad Law Center (AALS, 1989)	1
Oklahoma City University School of Law (AALS, 2003)	1
Quinnipiac University School of Law (AALS, 1985)	1
Roger Williams University School of Law (AALS, 2006)	2
Saint Thomas University School of Law (AALS, 2001)	3
Southern University Law Center (AALS, 2011))	0
South Texas College of Law (AALS, 1998)	1
Texas Southern University, Thurgood Marshall School of Law (AALS, 2014)	3
Texas A&M University School of Law (AALS, 2012)	4
Thomas Jefferson School of Law (AALS, 2008)	4
Western New England University School of Law (AALS, 1981)	2
Whittier Law School (AALS, 1987)	1
Widener University School of Law (AALS, 1987)	1
TOTAL	48

By presenting this information, I do not mean to suggest the wisdom of ranking of schools by number of speakers supplied to the AALS Annual Meeting.  What I wonder, though, is whether the numbers suggest anything *other* than differences in school cultures -- i.e., that some faculties highly value AALS attendance and participation; others do not.  In terms of geography, I had assumed that D.C.-area schools would supply a disproportionate number of speakers, based on the conference location this year, but apart from Georgetown, GW and American, my assumption appears to be incorrect.  For those who think the current system for selecting speakers for AALS panels yields the "best" (however defined) speakers, does the school-based data add anything to the analysis? It may be that the results are purely descriptive.  For whatever it's worth, the AALS panels generally are not populated with more than one speaker per school (and there may be a rule prohibiting that; I don't know).

Should the AALS Limit Annual Meeting Apperances to One Per Person?

The AALS Annual Meeting is well under way in Washington, D.C.  For the first time, the conference had its very own app, which was handy in some ways, limiting in others.  After an initial glitch, the app became searchable by speaker name, which is convenient.  One of the interesting pieces of information that is more difficult to ascertain with the app than with the paper program is how many speakers are making repeat appearances on AALS programs.

The paper program lists 772 unique speakers.  Of these, 88 (or approximately 11.4%) are making more than one appearance -- whether as Moderator or Speaker -- at the conference.  Of the 88, 11 are making more than two appearances.

The last time I looked at similar data was 2011 (see prior post here). That year, there were 603 different speakers, 44 of whom (approximately 7.3%) were making more than one appearance.  12 of those 44 appeared more than twice. 

I would be in favor of a conference rule that limited participants to one speaking appearance, with an exception for award recipients and perhaps AALS Officers and Executive Committee members (hey, if Justice Ginsburg is willing to come to receive the Section on Women in Legal Education's Lifetime Achievement Award and to speak on a program, as she did this year, I wouldn't want a rule limiting that).  Short of a per se rule, I would favor a scheduling preference for programs that featured speakers not appearing on other programs.  When the AALS previously instituted a scheduling preference for programs that included a call for papers, that caused many sections to institute an open selection process for at least one of their speaking slots.  That was a salutary change and helped diversify the AALS Annual Meeting for more and different voices, but I think it is worth devoting continued attention to the issue.

Diversity and the Professions at AEA Tomorrow

Having just finished up the Business Associations program on The Future of the Corporate Board this morning, I’m now off to Boston for a panel tomorrow at the American Economics Association Annual Meeting.  If any other law profs happen to be wandering the halls, definitely stop in to say “hello.”  I’ll be discussing my research on board diversity, and whatever lessons it may hold for diversity in the professions.  Other panelists will discuss the single woman penalty and diversity and the innovation economy.  Fellow law prof Laura Beny (Michigan) is moderating and will also discuss diversity and law firms. 

Unfortunately, the timing of the two conferences was such that I’m only able to attend the last day of AEA.  That’s too bad, as there were a number of sessions that I really wanted to attend.  Ah well. Can’t be everywhere at once. 

 

Jan 05, 2015 8:00 am, Boston Marriott Copley, New Hampshire

National Economic Association

Diversity and the Professions (J4)

 

Presiding: LAURA N. BENY (University of Michigan)

 

Diversity and the Innovation Economy

LISA D. COOK (Michigan State University)

 

Diversity and Performance of Elite United States Law Firms

LAURA N. BENY (University of Michigan)

 

Diversity and Talent at the Top: Lessons from the Boardroom

KIMBERLY KRAWIEC (Duke University)

 

Leadership and the Single Woman Penalty: A Role Expectations Account of Early Career Barriers to Promotion for Female MBAs

JENNIFER MERLUZZI (Tulane University)

DAMON PHILLIPS (Columbia University)

 

Discussants:

TERRY-ANN CRAIGIE (Connecticut College)

ROBYNN COX (Spelman College)

 

The Future of the Corporate Board at AALS

I’m hoping to see many of you at the AALS in the upcoming days.  Do remember to check out the Business Associations program, which is in the coveted time slot of 8:30 am – 10:15 am on Sunday in Thurgood Marshall East, Mezzanine Level.  Naturally the main draw here is the moderator, but there are some other notable presenters and discussants as well, as you can see from the program below.  Reading through the papers, I’d expect our discussion to touch specifically on managing the corporation for the long term versus the short term, balancing long term goals against management entrenchment, board independence, board diversity, connections between board diversity and board independence, and more. 

 

The Future of the Corporate Board

Moderator: Kimberly D. Krawiec, Duke University School of Law

Discussants: Christine Hurt, BYU Law School

   Robert B. Thompson, Georgetown University Law School

Speakers from a Call for Papers:

Sean J. Griffith, Fordham University School of Law

Jeffrey David Manns, The George Washington University Law School

Darren Rosenblum, Pace University School of Law

Andrew Abraham Schwartz, University of Colorado School of Law

How will boards adapt to recent changes and challenges in the business, legal, and social environment in which corporations operate? The recent global financial crisis and the continuing need for many corporations to compete internationally mean that today’s boards face economic pressures that their predecessors did not. This pressure is heightened by the rise of activist investors, many of whom aggressively push for changes to corporate management and governance. On the legal front, new regulations, such as Dodd-Frank, impose heightened compliance and other burdens on many companies and boards. And on the social front, pressures for socially responsible corporate behavior and greater racial and gender diversity on boards continues. Our program seeks to examine the ways in which boards have, and will in the future, respond to these challenges.

Business meeting at program conclusion.

Justice Ginsburg and Women’s Legal History at AALS

This is my first visit to the Lounge, and I want to thank Al and Dan and the crew for inviting me to post.  As the outgoing chair of the AALS Section on Legal History, I thought I would begin with some shameless promotion of the fantastic panel on women’s legal history we have at AALS this coming Saturday afternoon.  This is a joint program with the Section on Women in Legal Education (chaired by my friend and colleague, Kirsten Davis), and is co-sponsored by the Section on Constitutional Law.  Many readers will know already that the highlight of the panel (and of the conference) is a conversation with Justice Ginsburg, hosted by Wendy Williams.  Justice Ginsburg has been called the “Thurgood Marshall” of women’s rights, and while that moniker elides important differences in history, context, personality, etc., it certainly captures the significance of her role.  I will reserve a future post to explore some thoughts on what is said at the AALS program, but it is particularly fitting to have the Justice at this joint program since, in addition to her pivotal role in the modern history of women’s rights, she was also a founder of the Section for Women in Legal Education and a trailblazer for women in our profession, as this paper by Herma Hill Kay, this year’s recipient of the Women in Legal Education section’s Ruth Bader Ginsburg Lifetime Achievement Award, sets out so well.  As I discuss below the fold, Justice Ginsburg’s work sets the stage for the full program on the field of women’s legal history.

Journal Legal Education: Call for Essay Reviews

I'm delighted to report that the Journal of Legal Education has issued a call for book reviews and book review proposals.  Cribbing now from their proposal:

The Journal of Legal Educaiton (JLE) believes that review essays constitute an important means of communicating scholarly ideas and are particularly well-suited to facilitating dialogue and engagement within and among the legal scholarly community. Accordingly, the JLE has adopted a policy of dedicating space in all of its print issues to the publication of timely reviews of books related to the law (broadly defined). Although the JLE’s editors generally prefer to review complete drafts of proposed review essays, would-be authors are also welcome to submit book review proposals. Review essay proposals should, in a clear and concise manner, address (1) the reasons the book at issue merits a published review (including its general importance and the relevance/novelty of its contribution to the relevant field), (2) the proposer’s suitability for authoring a review (including specifically familiarity or knowledge of the relevant field of law, as well as prior scholarly publications in the field), (3) the main argument or arguments that the reviewer would advance in the review essay, and(4) whether other reviews of the book already have been published, and if, so, why the proposed review would add something important and new. There is no deadline for submissions of review essay manuscripts and proposals. All submissions will be considered on a rolling basis for possible publication in the JLE.. Manuscripts and review proposals should be submitted to either Professor Margaret Woo at [email protected] or Dean Jeremy Paul at [email protected], the co-editors of the JLE.

Their full call for review essays is here.  I've been pleased to see that over the past few years the JLE has increased the reviews they're publishing.  We all too rarely take the opportunity to assess recent monographs and over the past decade or so, many law reviews have stopped publishing essay reviews.  So I am very excited by this project.  I want to add that I'm delighted to have an essay review of Kirt von Daacke's very important new book Freedom Has A Face in the JLE.  Kirt's book, which is part of a wholesale reassessment of free people of African descent in the slave-owning south, speaks the nature of the rule of law in the old south.  When that essay review appears I'll talk a lot more about Kirt's book and how it is propelling more research.

Short Summary of After the JD III

I have a short summary of the third wave of the After the JD study up on the new AALS website.  I hope to be able to blog a bit more about this important study in the next couple of weeks.

Ben Barros

Deadline for Future of the Corporate Board Fast Approaching

Folks -- the deadline for submissions to the AALS Program of the Business Associations Section is September 12.  Please submit your papers and/or abstracts this week!

 

CFP: AALS Program of the Business Associations Section

AALS Program of the Business Associations Section

The Future of the Corporate Board

AALS Annual Meeting, January 4, 2015

 

The AALS Section on Business Associations is pleased to announce that it is sponsoring a Call for Papers for its program on Sunday, January 4^th at the AALS 2015 Annual Meeting in Washington, DC. 

The topic of the program and call for papers is “The Future of the Corporate Board.” 

How will boards adapt to recent changes and challenges in the business, legal, and social environment in which corporations operate?  The recent global financial crisis and the continuing need for many corporations to compete internationally mean that today’s boards face economic pressures that their predecessors did not.  This pressure is heightened by the rise of activist investors, many of whom aggressively push for changes to corporate management and governance. On the legal front, new regulations, such as Dodd-Frank, impose heightened compliance and other burdens on many companies and boards.  And on the social front, pressures for socially responsible corporate behavior and greater racial and gender diversity on boards continues.  Our program seeks to examine the ways in which boards have, and will in the future, respond to these challenges.    

Form and length of submission

Eligible law faculty are invited to submit manuscripts or abstracts that address any of the foregoing topics. Abstracts should be comprehensive enough to allow the review committee to meaningfully evaluate the aims and likely content of papers they propose. Papers may be accepted for publication but must not be published prior to the Annual Meeting.  Untenured faculty members are particularly encouraged to submit manuscripts or abstracts.  

The initial review of the papers will be blind.  Accordingly the author should submit a cover letter with the paper.  However, the paper itself, including the title page and footnotes must not contain any references identifying the author or the author’s school.  The submitting author is responsible for taking any steps necessary to redact self-identifying text or footnotes. 

Deadline and submission method

To be considered, papers must be submitted electronically to Kim Krawiec at [email protected].  The deadline for submission is SEPTEMBER 12, 2014. 

Papers will be selected after review by members of the section’s Executive Committee.  The authors of the selected papers will be notified by September 28, 2014. 

The Call for Paper participants will be responsible for paying their annual meeting registration fee and travel expenses.

Eligibility

Full-time faculty members of AALS member law schools are eligible to submit papers.  The following are ineligible to submit: foreign, visiting (without a full-time position at an AALS member law school) and adjunct faculty members, graduate students, fellows, non-law school faculty, and faculty at fee-paid non-member schools. Papers co-authored with a person ineligible to submit on their own may be submitted by the eligible co-author.

Please forward this Call for Papers to any eligible faculty who might be interested.