The Faculty Lounge

Introducing Naming Gotham

Thank you Dan and Bridget for inviting me to step into the Faculty Lounge.  I am going to be blogging about my new book Naming Gotham: The Villains, Rogues, and Heroes Behind New York Place Names. One writing truth that I learned (relearned?) writing is that book publishers are serious about word limits. Unlike a law review article where the word limit is more of a suggestion, my publisher gave me a hard upper limit for words in the book. I ran out of space long before I ran out of words. So, I have taken to blogging because there are more stories I want to tell.

First let me introduce the project.  Then in subsequent blog posts, I will share some of the stories and details that I had to cut from the book because of space constraints.

About Naming Gotham

Each day, millions of people “take” the Major Deegan, the Hutchinson Expressway, the Outerbridge Crossing, and the Holland Tunnel. Few travelers remember that, before these names became an urban shorthand for congestion, they were actual people. This quirky New York City history uses the naming of New York City’s roads, bridges, and civic institutions as a unique window into urban social structure and the City’s ever-changing inhabitants. The lives of Revolutionary War heroes, robber barons and Tammany Hall politicos introduce readers to the outsized roles that power politics, corruption, and the slave economy played and continue to play in New York City.

The names in this book tell only a small sliver of the City’s story. To date, New York City has chosen to commemorate mostly white men. In a city as diverse as New York, that fact is telling. It reflects the historical balance of power in the City—both in terms of who had the power to name things and who got to define what counts as history. As I was researching and writing this book, that began to change. Most significantly, the Shirley Chisholm State Park, named after the first Black woman elected to Congress, opened in 2019. This shift in who the City memorializes reflects the changing narrative that New Yorkers tell themselves about their city. It remains to be seen how this changing story will translate into the policies the City adopts for its schools, its roads, and its neighborhoods.

Here is the short (very funny) book trailer that artist and writer Jeff LaGreca made for Naming Gotham. 

 

Robert Macomb—Lawyer for the Ages?

In writing Naming Gotham: The Villains, Rogues, and Heroes Behind New York Place Names I discovered that ran out of space long before I ran out of words. So, I have taken to blogging because there are more stories I want to tell. This is one of them. You can read about the book project here, and the next installment of this saga here.

If you drive up FDR Drive on your way to the George Washington Bridge, you will pass Macombs Dam Bridge (at one time there was an apostrophe--Macomb's Dam Bridge because it belonged to Robert Macomb--but the apostrophe was lost to history.) The current iteration of Macombs Dam Bridge is a swing bridge, built in 1896.  At the time, it was the worlds heaviest movable object. It is also very beautiful (photo of Edward Hopper 1935 photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

The story behind the bridge, like so much our our named New York infrastructure, is a window into history.  Few New Yorkers have even heard of the Macomb family, or the outsized role they played in New York and United States history.  While Naming Gotham goes into detail about Alexander Macomb Sr.'s shady financial dealings, and Alexander Macomb Jr.'s military exploits, today I want to talk about the youngest male member of the Macomb clan and his own special brand of sleaze.  Maybe a better name would have been Macombs Damn Bridge

Meet Robert Macomb: Grifter Extraordinaire  

Born in 1783, Robert Macomb was the youngest son of Alexander Macomb Sr., a Revolutionary war-profiter who made a fortune  supplying the British forces in Ohio with food and arms. After the war, Alexander moved his family to New York City where he turned his talents for grift to land speculation. For a brief period Alexander owned most of the Adirondacks, and all of the Thousand Lakes, until his scheme with William Duer to corner the US debt market backfired, causing the Panic of 1792 and landing him in debtors prison.

Despite his father's drama, Robert grew up in the lap of post-revolution luxury. In fact, the Macomb family house became the first official residence for President George Washington. The family enslaved at least 12 Black people, making them the third-largest slaveholders in New York City.

Robert studied law at Columbia. Family political connections got him appointed clerk of the New York criminal court in 1811.
This involved first ousting the sitting clerk, John W. Wyman a move the New York Morning Post called “an instance of injustice and oppression scarcely paralleled in the annals of our state affairs.” (Robert Macomb painting by Edward Green Malbone, CCO, donated to Wikimedia Commons by the Metropolitan Museum of Art)

He didn’t last long in the job.  

In 1817, the New York Evening Post published multiple articles accusing Robert of malfeasance, alleging that Robert was “prostituting” his office as clerk of court “to the vilest, meanest, most mercenary and even dishonest purposes.” Specifically, the paper alleged that Robert sold pardons to convicted criminals, and pocketed fines and bail money paid into the court. Robert brought a libel action and lost spectacularly—the paper’s editor easily persuading a jury to rule in his favor on the ground that that truth was an absolute defense to libel. (People v. William Coleman). Robert was forced to resign his post. Attempts to get him to pay back the money floundered, with the committee formed to recoup funds characterizing Robert as "shuffling and evasive."

 

Forced out of public service, Macomb turned his hand to industrial and land development. Most notably, he obtained legislative approval to build a dam across the Harlem River to power a grist mill his father had build and then lost in bankruptcy. Robert bought it at the Tontine House bankruptcy sale. Article II of the legislative act approving the dam expressly required "[t]hat said dam shall be made and built as to admit the passage of boats and vessels accustomed to navigating the same, by means of a good and sufficient lock, gate, or apron or other contrivance and the said Robert Macomb, his heirs and assigns, at his or their own expense, shall keep and provide a suitable person to attend the same, so that no unnecessary delay may happen to those who may have occasion to pass the same." Article III provided a fine of $5 per instance for every time someone incurred "unnecessary delay." And, he was denied permission to build a toll bridge atop the dam. Robert was never one to let a legal technicality (in this case an express limitation in his legislative deed) stop him from making a buck. So, he built Macombs Dam Bridge without a lock, low enough to block navigation, and then built a toll bridge anyway. 

 After all, when your father’s “mad speculation” caused the Panic of 1792, and you are continually overshadowed by your older brother’s military exploits that helped save the Republic, AND you’ve just been forced out of your cushy government job, why not build an illegal dam and then add an illegal toll bridge on top.

Ah New York  . . .  Lawyers deciding they are above the law.  Real estate developers doing whatever they please, regardless of the public’s interest. Well-connected grifters leveraging old family ties into sinecures and then abusing their authority to line their pockets.  Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.  

Next Installment—The Breaching of  Macombs Dam Bridge—Enter Lewis Gouverneur Morris.

If you enjoy this kind of gossipy history, be sure to check out Naming Gotham!

Yale Journal of Law & Feminism Symposium 3/31 - Meeting the Moment: Legal Frameworks for Feminist Futures

The Yale Journal of Law & Feminism invites you to register for its symposium: Meeting the Moment: Legal Frameworks for Feminist Futures. This event will be held on Friday, March 31—the last day of Women’s History Month—at Yale Law School from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. It is free and open to the public. 

Both globally and domestically, trans and nonbinary people, women, the LGBTQ+ community, and racially subjugated groups are under attack from political regimes hostile to our rights and liberation. Against this backdrop, it is vital that we envision and build feminist futures. The purpose of this symposium is to grapple with the relationship between feminist legal theory and practice, with an eye toward what you can do to meet the moment. We’re bringing preeminent feminist scholars together with legal advocates and practitioners to discuss some of the most pressing issues of our times. We hope you’ll join the conversation.

Meeting the Moment

Legal Frameworks for Feminist Futures

(This schedule is tentative. More speakers will be added!)

8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m.

Registration & Breakfast

(Registration will be open all day.)

Morning Panels

 

9:00 a.m. – 10:10 a.m.

 

We, the Feminists

The Symposium’s opening panel will reflect on how the field of feminist legal thought emerged and grapple with the question of which groups of people have been integral, or marginal, to its development.

Sarah Deer

University Distinguished Professor at the University of Kansas and Chief Justice for the Prairie Island Indian Community Court of Appeals

Deborah Dinner

Professor of Law at Cornell School of Law

Joanna L. Grossman

Ellen K. Solender Endowed Chair in Women and the Law and Professor of Law at SMU Dedman School of Law

Serena Mayeri

Professor of Law & History at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School

 

Symposium Announcement—The Federal Income Tax: Racially Blind but Not Racially Neutral

What Do These Songs Have in Common (With One Exception)? [UPDATED]

Updated from last year with Carrie Underwood and Mariah Carey (toward the bottom of the post).

Maynard on "Killing the Motivation of the Minority Law Professor"

Goldburn P. Maynard Jr. (Indiana University, Kelley School of Business) has published Killing the Motivation of the Minority Law Professor, 107 Minn. L. Rev. 245 (2022). Here is the abstract:

This Essay hypothesizes that a significant number of minority junior scholars with radical or non-normative ideas forego those projects or mute them to fit their work within the dominant paradigm of legal scholarship. Even those who move forward and publish their radical or non-normative proposals spend significant time attempting to overcome internal and external resistance, negotiating with mentors, and finding ways to make the radical seem palatable. This disproportionately harms the productivity of minority law professors, not only through inefficiency, but also through the long-term destruction of intrinsic motivation that is vital and overlaps with successful, fulfilling, and productive careers. To counteract some of these stifling effects, this Essay proposes several ways in which universities and the legal academy can support radical and non-normative scholarship.

The full article is available here.

Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy

"Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy" was written by Don Raye and Hughie Prince in 1941, and first performed by the Andrews Sisters in the Abbott and Costello film Buck Privates. Their recording reached number six on the pop charts the same year. It was nominated for an Academy Award, but did not win. "Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy" has been covered numerous times, usually by female trios, and mostly with arrangements similar to the Andrews Sisters', if not outright imitations right down to the uniforms. Possible inspirations for the trumpeter have included Clarence Zylman (1906-88) and Harry Gish (1922-2005), both of whom had played "out Chicago way." Of course, there needn't have been a single inspiration for the song.

The sisters' other hits, though none as closely associated with them as "Bugle Boy," included "Beer Barrel Polka (Roll Out the Barrel)," "Beat Me Daddy, Eight to the Bar," "Don't Sit Under the Apple Tree (With Anyone Else but Me),” "Rum and Coca Cola," and  "Bei Mir Bist Du Schön (Means That You're Grand).” It might seem odd that the Minnesota-born, Greek-Norwegian Andrews Sisters popularized a song originally written in Yiddish, but the lyrics were translated for them by Sammy Cahn and the arrangement was by the appropriately named Vic Schoen, a couple of Jewish guys from New York.

Don't miss the Patty Andrews solo at the bottom of the post.

Results of Law Professor Twitter Census 2022-2023 Edition

The results of the 2022-2023 Law Professor Twitter Census are available for download here. The list includes areas of academic interest, for faculty who self-identified with that information. The list is arranged by school, instead of individual users' last names.

Here are responses to some anticipated questions from inquiring minds who want to know:

1. How was the census developed?

The list is based on previous censuses, conducted in 2012, 2015, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. It was amended and updated by contributions from blog readers in response to this post. I added additional or deleted very few names myself, based on law prof accounts that I have happened to encounter (typically because they follow me on Twitter or I follow them) or if I knew someone had changed schools, left the academy, etc. I made no concerted effort to update the list myself.

2. How accurate is the census?

Not at all. If there are corrections, additions, etc., please feel free to email me directly at bcrawford at law dot pace dot edu.  I'll republish from time to time based on new data I receive, but likely not until next year.

3. Why isn't my information listed in the census? Why isn't my colleague's information listed?

The census relies almost exclusively on self-identification. To be included in the list, you had to actively add yourself to it (as indicated here).

4. How does this year's data compare to the numbers from prior years?

For an historical comparison, here's the data from prior years:

	2022-2023 Version (10/9/22)	2021-2022 Version (10/17/21)	2020-2021 Version (9/17/20)	2019-2020 Version (9/13/19)	2018-2019 Version (8/15/2018)	2015 Version (1/23/2015)	2012 Version (7/26/2012)
Total  Number Users	1641	1477	1368	1310	1105	553	204

 

5. Who is included in the census?

The list is meant to cover only individual tweeters who are full-time faculty members at law schools.  The list is not meant to be a comprehensive account of everyone (adjuncts, librarians, practitioners, programs, institutes, students, group blogs) publishing law-related tweets. Consistent with past practice, emeritus faculty are included in the census.

6. What good is this information?

Either not at all or not much.  It might be a handy reference for quickly finding someone's Twitter handle, but I don't put any stock in the completeness or "meaning" of the info.

The results of the 2022-2023 Law Professor Twitter Census are available for download here. The list includes areas of academic interest, for faculty who self-identified with that information. The list is arranged by school, instead of individual users' last names.

Here are responses to some anticipated questions from inquiring minds who want to know:

1. How was the census developed?

The list is based on previous censuses, conducted in 2012, 2015, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. It was amended and updated by contributions from blog readers in response to this post. I added additional or deleted very few names myself, based on law prof accounts that I have happened to encounter (typically because they follow me on Twitter or I follow them) or if I knew someone had changed schools, left the academy, etc. I made no concerted effort to update the list myself.

2. How accurate is the census?

Not at all. If there are corrections, additions, etc., please feel free to email me directly at bcrawford at law dot pace dot edu.  I'll republish from time to time based on new data I receive, but likely not until next year.

3. Why isn't my information listed in the census? Why isn't my colleague's information listed?

The census relies almost exclusively on self-identification. To be included in the list, you had to actively add yourself to it (as indicated here).

4. How does this year's data compare to the numbers from prior years?

For an historical comparison, here's the data from prior years:

	2022-2023 Version (10/9/22)	2021-2022 Version (10/17/21)	2020-2021 Version (9/17/20)	2019-2020 Version (9/13/19)	2018-2019 Version (8/15/2018)	2015 Version (1/23/2015)	2012 Version (7/26/2012)
Total  Number Users	1641	1477	1368	1310	1105	553	204

 

5. Who is included in the census?

The list is meant to cover only individual tweeters who are full-time faculty members at law schools.  The list is not meant to be a comprehensive account of everyone (adjuncts, librarians, practitioners, programs, institutes, students, group blogs) publishing law-related tweets. Consistent with past practice, emeritus faculty are included in the census.

6. What good is this information?

Either not at all or not much.  It might be a handy reference for quickly finding someone's Twitter handle, but I don't put any stock in the completeness or "meaning" of the info.

Here are responses to some anticipated questions from inquiring minds who want to know:

1. How was the census developed?

The list is based on previous censuses, conducted in 2012, 2015, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. It was amended and updated by contributions from blog readers in response to this post. I added additional or deleted very few names myself, based on law prof accounts that I have happened to encounter (typically because they follow me on Twitter or I follow them) or if I knew someone had changed schools, left the academy, etc. I made no concerted effort to update the list myself.

2. How accurate is the census?

Not at all. If there are corrections, additions, etc., please feel free to email me directly at bcrawford at law dot pace dot edu.  I'll republish from time to time based on new data I receive, but likely not until next year.

3. Why isn't my information listed in the census? Why isn't my colleague's information listed?

The census relies almost exclusively on self-identification. To be included in the list, you had to actively add yourself to it (as indicated here).

4. How does this year's data compare to the numbers from prior years?

For an historical comparison, here's the data from prior years:

	2022-2023 Version (10/9/22)	2021-2022 Version (10/17/21)	2020-2021 Version (9/17/20)	2019-2020 Version (9/13/19)	2018-2019 Version (8/15/2018)	2015 Version (1/23/2015)	2012 Version (7/26/2012)
Total  Number Users	1641	1477	1368	1310	1105	553	204

 

5. Who is included in the census?

The list is meant to cover only individual tweeters who are full-time faculty members at law schools.  The list is not meant to be a comprehensive account of everyone (adjuncts, librarians, practitioners, programs, institutes, students, group blogs) publishing law-related tweets. Consistent with past practice, emeritus faculty are included in the census.

6. What good is this information?

Either not at all or not much.  It might be a handy reference for quickly finding someone's Twitter handle, but I don't put any stock in the completeness or "meaning" of the info.

Call for Entries: Law Professor Twitter Census 2022-2023 Edition

Bumping to the top 10/5/22. Deadline to add entries is 10/6/22, 5pm Eastern

If you'd like to be listed in the semi-regular census of law professor Twitter users (or confirm that you are listed already), please read on.

It’s been about one year since the last Law Prof Twitter Census here at the Lounge. Prior surveys are here (2012), here (2012), here (2015),  here (2018),  here (2019),  here (2020) and here (2021).

As with prior versions, the list is meant to cover individual law professor tweeters only (not accounts of groups, programs, blogs, law schools, print publications, students, practitioners, staff).  Folks should be full-time law school faculty members (not, say, law-trained profs working in business schools or lawyers working in law schools in roles other than full-time faculty). Law profs outside the U.S. very, very welcome. Anonymous and pseudonymous accounts are not eligible for inclusion.

The downloadable, sortable spreadsheet can be edited directly by accessing this link. If you’d like to add your name, or if you would like to add to or modify your existing listing in census, the census calls for:

(a) Your name

(b) Your Twitter handle

(c) Your school affiliation

(d) Up to three subject-matter areas of interest that related to your teaching, scholarship or tweeting.

Here are customary responses to some anticipated questions from inquiring minds who want to know:

1.  How was the census developed?

The list is based on previous censuses. I have added or deleted very few names myself, based on law prof accounts that I have happened to encounter (typically because they follow me on Twitter or I follow them) or if I knew someone had changed schools, left the academy, etc. I have made no concerted effort to update the list myself.

2.  How accurate is the census?

Not at all.

If there are corrections, additions, etc., please feel free to make them directly to the spreadsheet.  As a last resort, you can email me directly at bcrawford at law dot pace dot edu.  The deadline for changes is October 6, 2022, 5pm eastern. I'll republish again shortly thereafter via posting here on the Lounge, and then not again until next year, most likely.

3. Why isn't my information listed in the census? Why isn't my colleague's information listed?

The census relies almost exclusively on self-identification. To be included in the list, you must actively add yourself to it.

4. Why is your list limited to full-time law school faculty members?

Because that's the population about which I wanted to capture data. Want a different survey? A better one? Feel free to start one, and I'm happy to publicize it here, if relevant to legal education.

The current census is embedded below, too (but edit via links above).

Bumping to the top 10/5/22. Deadline to add entries is 10/6/22, 5pm Eastern

If you'd like to be listed in the semi-regular census of law professor Twitter users (or confirm that you are listed already), please read on.

It’s been about one year since the last Law Prof Twitter Census here at the Lounge. Prior surveys are here (2012), here (2012), here (2015),  here (2018),  here (2019),  here (2020) and here (2021).

As with prior versions, the list is meant to cover individual law professor tweeters only (not accounts of groups, programs, blogs, law schools, print publications, students, practitioners, staff).  Folks should be full-time law school faculty members (not, say, law-trained profs working in business schools or lawyers working in law schools in roles other than full-time faculty). Law profs outside the U.S. very, very welcome. Anonymous and pseudonymous accounts are not eligible for inclusion.

The downloadable, sortable spreadsheet can be edited directly by accessing this link. If you’d like to add your name, or if you would like to add to or modify your existing listing in census, the census calls for:

(a) Your name

(b) Your Twitter handle

(c) Your school affiliation

(d) Up to three subject-matter areas of interest that related to your teaching, scholarship or tweeting.

Here are customary responses to some anticipated questions from inquiring minds who want to know:

1.  How was the census developed?

The list is based on previous censuses. I have added or deleted very few names myself, based on law prof accounts that I have happened to encounter (typically because they follow me on Twitter or I follow them) or if I knew someone had changed schools, left the academy, etc. I have made no concerted effort to update the list myself.

2.  How accurate is the census?

Not at all.

If there are corrections, additions, etc., please feel free to make them directly to the spreadsheet.  As a last resort, you can email me directly at bcrawford at law dot pace dot edu.  The deadline for changes is October 6, 2022, 5pm eastern. I'll republish again shortly thereafter via posting here on the Lounge, and then not again until next year, most likely.

3. Why isn't my information listed in the census? Why isn't my colleague's information listed?

The census relies almost exclusively on self-identification. To be included in the list, you must actively add yourself to it.

4. Why is your list limited to full-time law school faculty members?

Because that's the population about which I wanted to capture data. Want a different survey? A better one? Feel free to start one, and I'm happy to publicize it here, if relevant to legal education.

The current census is embedded below, too (but edit via links above).

Bumping to the top 10/5/22. Deadline to add entries is 10/6/22, 5pm Eastern

If you'd like to be listed in the semi-regular census of law professor Twitter users (or confirm that you are listed already), please read on.

It’s been about one year since the last Law Prof Twitter Census here at the Lounge. Prior surveys are here (2012), here (2012), here (2015),  here (2018),  here (2019),  here (2020) and here (2021).

As with prior versions, the list is meant to cover individual law professor tweeters only (not accounts of groups, programs, blogs, law schools, print publications, students, practitioners, staff).  Folks should be full-time law school faculty members (not, say, law-trained profs working in business schools or lawyers working in law schools in roles other than full-time faculty). Law profs outside the U.S. very, very welcome. Anonymous and pseudonymous accounts are not eligible for inclusion.

The downloadable, sortable spreadsheet can be edited directly by accessing this link. If you’d like to add your name, or if you would like to add to or modify your existing listing in census, the census calls for:

(a) Your name

(b) Your Twitter handle

(c) Your school affiliation

(d) Up to three subject-matter areas of interest that related to your teaching, scholarship or tweeting.

Here are customary responses to some anticipated questions from inquiring minds who want to know:

1.  How was the census developed?

The list is based on previous censuses. I have added or deleted very few names myself, based on law prof accounts that I have happened to encounter (typically because they follow me on Twitter or I follow them) or if I knew someone had changed schools, left the academy, etc. I have made no concerted effort to update the list myself.

2.  How accurate is the census?

Not at all.

If there are corrections, additions, etc., please feel free to make them directly to the spreadsheet.  As a last resort, you can email me directly at bcrawford at law dot pace dot edu.  The deadline for changes is October 6, 2022, 5pm eastern. I'll republish again shortly thereafter via posting here on the Lounge, and then not again until next year, most likely.

3. Why isn't my information listed in the census? Why isn't my colleague's information listed?

The census relies almost exclusively on self-identification. To be included in the list, you must actively add yourself to it.

4. Why is your list limited to full-time law school faculty members?

Because that's the population about which I wanted to capture data. Want a different survey? A better one? Feel free to start one, and I'm happy to publicize it here, if relevant to legal education.

The current census is embedded below, too (but edit via links above).

Bumping to the top 10/5/22. Deadline to add entries is 10/6/22, 5pm Eastern

If you'd like to be listed in the semi-regular census of law professor Twitter users (or confirm that you are listed already), please read on.

It’s been about one year since the last Law Prof Twitter Census here at the Lounge. Prior surveys are here (2012), here (2012), here (2015),  here (2018),  here (2019),  here (2020) and here (2021).

As with prior versions, the list is meant to cover individual law professor tweeters only (not accounts of groups, programs, blogs, law schools, print publications, students, practitioners, staff).  Folks should be full-time law school faculty members (not, say, law-trained profs working in business schools or lawyers working in law schools in roles other than full-time faculty). Law profs outside the U.S. very, very welcome. Anonymous and pseudonymous accounts are not eligible for inclusion.

The downloadable, sortable spreadsheet can be edited directly by accessing this link. If you’d like to add your name, or if you would like to add to or modify your existing listing in census, the census calls for:

(a) Your name

(b) Your Twitter handle

(c) Your school affiliation

(d) Up to three subject-matter areas of interest that related to your teaching, scholarship or tweeting.

Here are customary responses to some anticipated questions from inquiring minds who want to know:

1.  How was the census developed?

The list is based on previous censuses. I have added or deleted very few names myself, based on law prof accounts that I have happened to encounter (typically because they follow me on Twitter or I follow them) or if I knew someone had changed schools, left the academy, etc. I have made no concerted effort to update the list myself.

2.  How accurate is the census?

Not at all.

If there are corrections, additions, etc., please feel free to make them directly to the spreadsheet.  As a last resort, you can email me directly at bcrawford at law dot pace dot edu.  The deadline for changes is October 6, 2022, 5pm eastern. I'll republish again shortly thereafter via posting here on the Lounge, and then not again until next year, most likely.

3. Why isn't my information listed in the census? Why isn't my colleague's information listed?

The census relies almost exclusively on self-identification. To be included in the list, you must actively add yourself to it.

4. Why is your list limited to full-time law school faculty members?

Because that's the population about which I wanted to capture data. Want a different survey? A better one? Feel free to start one, and I'm happy to publicize it here, if relevant to legal education.

The current census is embedded below, too (but edit via links above).

Call for Nominations: AALS Federal Courts Section

This just in:

The AALS Section on Federal Courts is pleased to announce the annual award for the best article on the law of federal jurisdiction by a full-time, untenured faculty member at an AALS member or affiliate school—and to solicit nominations (including self-nominations) for the prize to be awarded at the 2023 AALS Annual Meeting.

The purpose of the award program is to recognize outstanding scholarship in the field of federal courts by untenured faculty members. To that end, eligible articles are those specifically in the field of Federal Courts that were published by a recognized journal during the twelve-month period ending on September 1, 2022 (date of actual publication determines eligibility). Eligible authors are those who, at the close of nominations (i.e., as of September 15, 2022), are untenured, full-time faculty members at AALS member or affiliate schools, and have not previously won the award. Nominations (and questions about the award) should be directed to Prof. Diego Zambrano at Stanford Law School ([email protected]).

Without exception, all nominations must be received by 11:59 p.m. (EDT) on September 15, 2022. Nominations will be reviewed by a prize committee comprised of Professors Merritt McAlister (University of Florida Levin College of Law), Richard Re (University of Virginia), Mila Sohoni (University of San Diego School of Law), Steve Vladeck (University of Texas), and Diego Zambrano (Stanford) with the result announced at the Federal Courts section program at the 2023 AALS Annual Meeting.

The Plagiarism Taboo with Brian Frye

A new bonus episode of the Taboo Trades podcast is up and it is a lot of fun.

My guest is one of the most unusual and creative voices in the legal academy, Brian Frye, the Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky. He teaches classes in civil procedure, intellectual property, copyright, and nonprofit organizations, as well as a seminar on law and popular culture. Today we’re engaging in academic navel gazing and opining on plagiarism, law review publishing, and scholarly shit posting.

Brian is also a filmmaker. He produced the documentary Our Nixon (2013), which was broadcast by CNN and opened theatrically nationwide. His short films and videos have shown in the 2002 Whitney Biennial, the New York Film Festival, and the San Francisco International Film Festival, among other venues, and are in the permanent collection of the Whitney Museum of American Art. His critical writing on film and art has appeared in October, The New Republic, Film Comment, Cineaste, Senses of Cinema, and Incite! among other journals.

Professor Frye also produces a podcast that I highly recommend, Ipse Dixit https://shows.pippa.io/ipse-dixit

 

 

The Feminist Legal Theory Project's Search for an Archival Home:

Earlier this week, Ms. Magazine published an article (here) revealing the somewhat surprising decision of the Schlesinger Library at Harvard University to decline the records of the Feminism and Legal Theory Project, begun at the University of Wisconsin in 1984 and still going strong at Emory University, under the leadership of path-breaking scholar Professor Martha Fineman.  Here's an excerpt from the story:

For close to four decades, Fineman’s Feminism and Legal Theory Project has hosted hundreds of conversations where feminist thinkers from across the United States and world have shaped and explored a wide range of concepts relating to women’s position within law and society. Those conversations delved into the “public nature of private violence,” the legal regulation of motherhood, feminism’s reception in the media, the relevance of economics to feminist thought, the complexities of sexuality, conflicting children’s and parental rights, the origins and implications of dependency and vulnerability, and the extent and nature of social responsibility. ***

Out of these conversations emerged the first anthology of feminist legal theory, At the Boundaries of Law, published in 1991. Many more followed, including over a dozen collections, numerous special issues of law reviews and hundreds of individual articles developing an interdisciplinary approach to feminist legal theory.

“In the Feminism and Legal Theory Project, we created what I called ‘uncomfortable conversations’—events where people who shared values, but disagreed about strategies and implementation, could talk,” said Fineman. “If there were areas of disagreement around collective objectives, you could talk about them and work through them hopefully in a constructive manner. That’s how actual progress can be made.” ***

Fineman recorded all of these conversations—a treasure trove of close to four decades of feminist intellectual history. But she is now struggling to find a home for this invaluable archive of the first generation of feminist legal thinkers.

“History has something to teach us. If we don’t collect the history and preserve it, then it can’t teach us,” said Fineman.

The Schlesinger Library at Harvard University is one of the few facilities that currently has the resources to care for the Fineman’s collection, but they told her that although they saw its value, they would not take her archives because they had other priorities. According to Fineman, a representative from Harvard told her: “We do see the real importance of the conferences, the ideas generated, and know it is an important resource for scholars. Unfortunately, it doesn’t align with our current strategic priorities, which involve a heightened focus on lives of women of color. We wouldn’t be able to commit the resources the archives need to its care.”

Others archives, including the Sophia Smith Collection of Women’s History at Smith College, the Sallie Bingham Center for Women’s History and Culture at Duke University and the Pembroke Center Archives at Brown University, indicated they have other priorities (e.g. Smith is prioritizing papers related to sex workers’ rights while Duke “does not focus on the papers of legal scholars”) or they do not have the resources or technical capacity to house the collection.

“Some people are telling me the size of the collection is prohibitive,” said Fineman. “They talk about the necessity to digitize everything initially—but then explain that current technology will need ongoing updating, and this will all add to the cost, ironically decreasing the amount of material that they can actually collect.”

Read the full story here.

Call for Nominations for the AALS Section on Women in Legal Education 2023 Ruth Bader Ginsburg Lifetime Achievement Award

The AALS Section on Women in Legal Education is pleased to open nominations for its 2023 Ruth Bader Ginsburg Lifetime Achievement Award. In 2013, the inaugural award honored Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Subsequent winners include Catharine A. MacKinnon (2014), Herma Hill Kay (2015), Marina Angel (2016), Martha Albertson Fineman (2017), Tamar Frankel (2018), Phoebe Haddon (2019), Robin West (2020), Kimberlé Crenshaw (2021), and Camille De Jorna (2022). All of these remarkable women were recognized for their outstanding impact and contributions to the Section on Women in Legal Education, the legal academy, and the legal profession.

The purpose of the Ruth Bader Ginsburg Lifetime Achievement Award is to honor an individual who has had a distinguished career of teaching, service, and scholarship for at least 20 years. The recipient should be someone who has impacted women, the legal community, the academy, and the issues that affect women through mentoring, writing, speaking, activism, and by providing opportunities to others.

The Section is now seeking nominations for this most prestigious award. Only individuals who are eligible for Section membership may make a nomination, and only individuals—not institutions, organizations, or law schools—are eligible for the award. More than one person may nominate the same candidate; however, the number of nominations for any one nominee is not determinative of the winner. As established by the Section’s Bylaws, the AALS Section on Women in Legal Education Executive Committee will select the award recipient, and the award will be presented at the 2022 AALS Annual Meeting.

SUBMISSION: Nominations should be submitted to Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Treasurer, AALS WILE, [email protected] with the header “RBG Nomination-AALS 2023.”

DEADLINE: September 6, 2022.

Cardozo and George Mason Law Host Dean's Academy

...for new and prospective law school deans.  Details here.

Why Law Schools Fail

In the wake of the recent announcements of the opening of two new law schools, one at Jacksonville University in Jacksonville, FL and at one at High Point University, in High Point, NC, I thought it would be worth exploring the question of why some law schools (especially new law schools) fail, and why others succeed.

The simple answer is that law schools fail when they admit too many underqualified students.  ABA Standard 501(b) states: “A law school shall only admit applicants who appear capable of satisfactorily completing its program of legal education and being admitted to the bar.”  If law schools adhered to this simple rule, few, if any, would ever fail.  But, either because of greed, wishful thinking, or financial desperation, numerous law schools in recent years disregarded this guidance.  For many of them, the decision to violate this basic standard ultimately led to their downfall.

What Happens When Law Schools Admit Unqualified Students

When law schools admit large numbers of unqualified students -- that is, students who do not appear likely to be able to pass a bar exam -- it starts a vicious cycle.

Read Ann Lipton’s Canceled Paper

Professor Ann Lipton, of Tulane Law School, wrote a paper, Capital Discrimination, which was accepted for publication in the Houston Law Review and posted to SSRN. As Ann explains over at the Business Law Prof Blog:

[T]he paper explores the problem of gender discrimination against women as business owners and capital providers, and proposes changes to both statutory law and common law fiduciary duties in order to address gender-based oppression in business.

The paper itself describes several business law cases from different jurisdictions, including Shawe v. Elting, a matter very familiar to business lawyers, and which involved an acrimonious dispute in the Delaware courts.  Just before Christmas, an attorney representing Philip Shawe sent this cease and desist letter to SSRN, demanding that the paper be removed from that site as defamatory. 

On New Year’s Day, SSRN removed the paper in response to Shawe’s letter.  After that, Houston Law Review could no longer assure me that the article would run in its journal, and stated that they would not preclude me from submitting the paper for publication elsewhere.   

Tulane has sent a response letter to SSRN noting that the article’s factual assertions are drawn from publicly available court opinions and filings and the author’s conclusions are nondefamatory statements of personal opinion.

 The full paper is available at this link. 

Update: 

 

And would be great if @SSRN laid out some guidance on their standards and how they plan to review such claims going forward https://t.co/tSEwgMWQFi

— Kim Krawiec (@KimKrawiec) February 14, 2022

Update 2: This is good news!

Did LSA Admit that the "Value" of a Virtual Conference is Not the Same as an In-Person Conference?

In 2020, I was a vocal critic of the Law & Society's decision to charge virtual conference attendees the same fee that would have been charged for the in-person conference. That led to a scolding by Penny Andrews, Kim Lane Scheppele, Jonathan Klaaren, and Anna-Maria Marshall who wrote (here) that:

Professor Crawford complained about the cost of a virtual meeting, because LSA Board decided not to offer everyone a partial refund. In fact, a virtual meeting is not free. The largest cost that goes into the meeting is the staff time that it takes to put the program together, which often involves multiple interactions with thousands of people. This year, the program will have been put together twice. One program had almost been completed for an in-person meeting that won’t happen. Now we need to see who will continue into the virtual meeting because that will require that the program be redone a second time to put newly orphaned papers onto new panels, to fill in gaps of chairs and discussants, and to work with the CRNs to ensure that their programs remain coherent. All that involves staff time. Plus there will be adjustments to the app, working out when people can attend the online sessions, updates to conference attendees and to the CRNs about how the program is coming along, and of course close support of conference attendees in the run-up to the meeting.

Um, I never said that the conference should be free. 

I am pleased to see that the cost to attend the 2022 Law & Society Annual Meeting virtually is substantially less than the in-person conference fee:

Virtual attendance is not the same "value" as in-person attendance; the 2022 registration fee reflects that.

Virtual or not, Law & Society remains my favorite conference of the year.

Resources for New and Aspiring Administrative Law Scholars

Chris Walker (Ohio State) has some great suggestions here on Twitter that he developed in more detail in a post (here) for Notice & Comment, a blog from the Yale Journal on Regulation and ABA Section of Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice.

Law Professor Twitter Census 2021-2022 Edition - Call for Entries, Revisions by 10/7

If you'd like to be listed in the semi-regular census of law professor Twitter users (or confirm that you are listed already), please read on.

It’s been about one year since the last Law Prof Twitter Census here at the Lounge. Prior surveys are here (2012), here (2012), here (2015),  here (2018)  here (2019) and here (2020).

As with prior versions, the list is meant to cover individual law professor tweeters only (not accounts of groups, programs, blogs, law schools, print publications, students, practitioners, staff).  Folks should be full-time law school faculty members (not, say, law-trained profs working in business schools or lawyers working in law schools in roles other than full-time faculty). Law profs outside the U.S. very, very welcome. Anonymous and pseudonymous accounts are not eligible for inclusion.

The downloadable, sortable spreadsheet can be edited directly by accessing this link. If you’d like to add your name, or if you would like to add to or modify your existing listing in census, the census calls for:

(a) Your name

(b) Your Twitter handle

(c) Your school affiliation

(d) Up to three subject-matter areas of interest that related to your teaching, scholarship or tweeting.

Here are customary responses to some anticipated questions from inquiring minds who want to know:

1.  How was the census developed?

The list is based on previous censuses. I have added or deleted very few names myself, based on law prof accounts that I have happened to encounter (typically because they follow me on Twitter or I follow them) or if I knew someone had changed schools, left the academy, etc. I have made no concerted effort to update the list myself.

2.  How accurate is the census?

Not at all.

If there are corrections, additions, etc., please feel free to make them directly to the spreadsheet.  As a last resort, you can email me directly at bcrawford at law dot pace dot edu.  The deadline for changes is October 7, 2021, 5pm eastern. I'll republish again shortly thereafter, and then not again until next year, most likely.

3. Why isn't my information listed in the census? Why isn't my colleague's information listed?

The census relies almost exclusively on self-identification. To be included in the list, you must actively add yourself to it.

4. Why is your list limited to full-time law school faculty members?

Because that's the population about which I wanted to capture data. Want a different survey? A better one? Feel free to start one, and I'm happy to publicize it here, if relevant to legal education.

The current census is embedded below, too.

If you'd like to be listed in the semi-regular census of law professor Twitter users (or confirm that you are listed already), please read on.

It’s been about one year since the last Law Prof Twitter Census here at the Lounge. Prior surveys are here (2012), here (2012), here (2015),  here (2018)  here (2019) and here (2020).

As with prior versions, the list is meant to cover individual law professor tweeters only (not accounts of groups, programs, blogs, law schools, print publications, students, practitioners, staff).  Folks should be full-time law school faculty members (not, say, law-trained profs working in business schools or lawyers working in law schools in roles other than full-time faculty). Law profs outside the U.S. very, very welcome. Anonymous and pseudonymous accounts are not eligible for inclusion.

The downloadable, sortable spreadsheet can be edited directly by accessing this link. If you’d like to add your name, or if you would like to add to or modify your existing listing in census, the census calls for:

(a) Your name

(b) Your Twitter handle

(c) Your school affiliation

(d) Up to three subject-matter areas of interest that related to your teaching, scholarship or tweeting.

Here are customary responses to some anticipated questions from inquiring minds who want to know:

1.  How was the census developed?

The list is based on previous censuses. I have added or deleted very few names myself, based on law prof accounts that I have happened to encounter (typically because they follow me on Twitter or I follow them) or if I knew someone had changed schools, left the academy, etc. I have made no concerted effort to update the list myself.

2.  How accurate is the census?

Not at all.

If there are corrections, additions, etc., please feel free to make them directly to the spreadsheet.  As a last resort, you can email me directly at bcrawford at law dot pace dot edu.  The deadline for changes is October 7, 2021, 5pm eastern. I'll republish again shortly thereafter, and then not again until next year, most likely.

3. Why isn't my information listed in the census? Why isn't my colleague's information listed?

The census relies almost exclusively on self-identification. To be included in the list, you must actively add yourself to it.

4. Why is your list limited to full-time law school faculty members?

Because that's the population about which I wanted to capture data. Want a different survey? A better one? Feel free to start one, and I'm happy to publicize it here, if relevant to legal education.

The current census is embedded below, too.

If you'd like to be listed in the semi-regular census of law professor Twitter users (or confirm that you are listed already), please read on.

It’s been about one year since the last Law Prof Twitter Census here at the Lounge. Prior surveys are here (2012), here (2012), here (2015),  here (2018)  here (2019) and here (2020).

As with prior versions, the list is meant to cover individual law professor tweeters only (not accounts of groups, programs, blogs, law schools, print publications, students, practitioners, staff).  Folks should be full-time law school faculty members (not, say, law-trained profs working in business schools or lawyers working in law schools in roles other than full-time faculty). Law profs outside the U.S. very, very welcome. Anonymous and pseudonymous accounts are not eligible for inclusion.

The downloadable, sortable spreadsheet can be edited directly by accessing this link. If you’d like to add your name, or if you would like to add to or modify your existing listing in census, the census calls for:

(a) Your name

(b) Your Twitter handle

(c) Your school affiliation

(d) Up to three subject-matter areas of interest that related to your teaching, scholarship or tweeting.

Here are customary responses to some anticipated questions from inquiring minds who want to know:

1.  How was the census developed?

The list is based on previous censuses. I have added or deleted very few names myself, based on law prof accounts that I have happened to encounter (typically because they follow me on Twitter or I follow them) or if I knew someone had changed schools, left the academy, etc. I have made no concerted effort to update the list myself.

2.  How accurate is the census?

Not at all.

If there are corrections, additions, etc., please feel free to make them directly to the spreadsheet.  As a last resort, you can email me directly at bcrawford at law dot pace dot edu.  The deadline for changes is October 7, 2021, 5pm eastern. I'll republish again shortly thereafter, and then not again until next year, most likely.

3. Why isn't my information listed in the census? Why isn't my colleague's information listed?

The census relies almost exclusively on self-identification. To be included in the list, you must actively add yourself to it.

4. Why is your list limited to full-time law school faculty members?

Because that's the population about which I wanted to capture data. Want a different survey? A better one? Feel free to start one, and I'm happy to publicize it here, if relevant to legal education.

The current census is embedded below, too.

Call for Nominations: AALS Federal Courts Section

This just in:

The AALS Section on Federal Courts is pleased to announce the annual award for the best article on the law of federal jurisdiction by a full-time, untenured faculty member at an AALS member or affiliate school—and to solicit nominations (including self-nominations) for the prize to be awarded at the 2022 AALS Annual Meeting.

The purpose of the award program is to recognize outstanding scholarship in the field of federal courts by untenured faculty members. To that end, eligible articles are those specifically in the field of Federal Courts that were published by a recognized journal during the twelve-month period ending on September 1, 2021 (date of actual publication determines eligibility). Eligible authors are those who, at the close of nominations (i.e., as of September 15, 2021), are untenured, full-time faculty members at AALS member or affiliate schools, and have not previously won the award. Nominations (and questions about the award) should be directed to Prof. Leah Litman at the University of Michigan Law School ([email protected]). Without exception, all nominations must be received by 11:59 p.m. (EDT) on September 15, 2021. Nominations will be reviewed by a prize committee comprised of Professors Curt Bradley (University of Chicago), Maggie Gardner (Cornell), Leah Litman (Michigan), Joanna Schwartz (UCLA), and Diego Zambrano (Stanford), with the result announced at the Federal Courts section program at the 2022 AALS Annual Meeting.

Mitchell-Hamline Prof. Appointed to Judgeship

Professor Colette Routel, a well-known professor in the Federal Indian Law community, has been appointed to a judgeship in Hennepin County, Minnesota. In making the appointment, Governor Walz rightly recognized Prof. Routel as  “a brilliant lawyer who brings a unique perspective with her many years of experience as an attorney, tribal court judge, and law professor.” The full press release is here. Hennepin County has gained an important jurist, and it's a credit to the State of Minnesota that such a stalwart advocate for tribes was appointed to a judgeship. At the same time, the Indian Law Community of academics and practitioners will miss her sorely. Among many other accomplishments, Prof. Routel has been nothing less than a force of nature when it comes to writing amicus briefs in federal Indian law cases. Congratulations to Professor Routel!