I received this call for responses from Jennifer Carter-Johnson (Michigan State). Please feel free to respond directly to Jenny, and to circulate broadly:
I am working on the newsletter for the New Law Professors Section. If you’d like to write a piece for that, I’d love to hear from you. BUT even if you don’t want to commit to a full article, I’m planning an advice section with short comments. If you could answer one or both of the questions below in 1-3 sentences, I’ll try to include as many responses as possible in the newsletter. I am happy to make your comments anonymous if you prefer, just let me know.
1. What surprised you the most about the tenure process? OR What do you wish you had known before going through the tenure process?
2. How do you structure your writing schedule and keep yourself motivated in light of all of your other obligations?
I just finished reading this fascinating paper by Genevieve Lakier (U. Chicago Bigelow), which reveals that the concept of low-value speech (which receives only weak First Amendment protection) and high-value speech (which receives full First Amendment protection) is a historically-created myth. The reality is that, at the founding and through the nineteenth century, both categories were viewed as entitled to some protection and subject to some regulation. Continue reading →
Jessica Valenti asks important questions about men’s violence against women: “[I]t’s hard to look at the continued violence and violent speech directed at women by men and not wonder: what is it about women that makes some men so angry?”
A lot of thought-provoking material crossed my desk last week, including several law review articles that I’m hoping to read and review within the next few weeks. For now, here are a few recommendations for those with some down time this weekend:
Adrian Chen, The Laborers Who Keep Dick Pics and Beheadings Out of Your Facebook Feed: I learned a lot from this piece about how Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies outsource overseas much of the work required to remove offensive content from their platforms. The experience of the people who do that work is something I’d not thought about. One former worker describes why he quit: “At that moment Swearingen decided he did not want to become a connoisseur of beheading videos.” Continue reading →
Adjunct Walkout Day is on February 25, 2015. Sarah Kendzior offers a powerful explanation why everyone should care about the plight of adjuncts: “The plight of the adjunct shows one can have all the education in the world and still have no place in it.” Those of us who are tenured and tenure-track faculty should care in an even more immediate way, as the fate of the adjunct is intimately tied with the fate and shape of our own institutions. The issues for adjuncts teaching at law schools are somewhat different than for adjuncts in many fields, in part because the pool of adjuncts is different. Many, although not all, adjuncts at law schools are practicing attorneys, who teach a class because they enjoy it, not as an attempt to make a full-time living. This is a situation different from that of adjuncts in, for example, the humanities, who in many instances don’t have a full-time job apart from adjuncting and in some instances are trying to cobble together a living by teaching several classes as adjuncts. Continue reading →
The piece is already getting attention in the blogosphere, and with good reason. It’s the first piece to undertake a systematic overview of the half million people per year who are imprisoned as a result of suspected or actual immigration violations. The piece defines this unique population with specificity and catalogs the many avenues by which people enter the imprisoned population. Understanding the genesis and characteristics of the population provides a crucial foundation for subsequent efforts to reform a system that presently imprisons far too many people for immigration-related reasons, resulting in severe costs at both a human and an economic level.
Here is the abstract for the piece:
Only recently has imprisonment become a central feature of both civil and criminal immigration law enforcement. Apart from harms to individuals and communities arising from other types of immigration enforcement, such as removal, imprisonment comes with its own severe consequences, and yet it is relatively ignored. This Article is the first to define a new prison population as those imprisoned as a result of suspected or actual immigration law violations, whether civil or criminal, a population that now numbers more than half a million individuals a year. It is also the first to systematically map the many entryways into immigration imprisonment across every level of government and involving civil and criminal law enforcement tools.
Examining the population as a whole provides crucial insights as to how we arrived at this state of mass immigration imprisonment. While political motivations — parallel to those that fueled the rapid expansion of criminal mass incarceration — may have started the trend, this Article demonstrates that key legal and policy choices explain how imprisonment has become an entrenched feature of immigration law enforcement. In fact, legislators and immigration officials have locked themselves into this choice, as there are now literally billions of dollars, tens of thousands of prison beds, and innumerable third parties invested in maintaining and expanding the use of immigration imprisonment. Using the literature on path dependence and legal legitimacy, this Article explains the phenomenon of immigration imprisonment as a single category that spans all levels of government. Rather than continue further along this path, the Article concludes by suggesting that policymakers should seek a future reflective of immigration law enforcement’s past when imprisonment was the exception rather than the norm.
One silver lining to the increased attention that Gamergate has received is that a lot of worthwhile pieces have been written about online abuse, particularly as it targets women and other marginalized groups. I learned a lot from this piece by Amanda Hess detailing a conversation with an FBI agent about why it’s so hard to prosecute people who make threats and otherwise use the Internet illegally. Particularly striking to me was the FBI agent’s comment about the volume of work:
“It was never a matter of not caring . . . the volume of work coming in every day was absolutely staggering. We had to do triage, almost as if we were in a war zone, deciding which patients to treat first.”
Danielle Teller & Astro Teller, How American Parenting is Killing the American Marriage: Teller & Teller offer a provocative interpretation of the quasi-religion status parenting has gained in American society in recent years. They argue that treating parenthood as the most important thing in life is bad for children (we might be raising a generation of narcissists) and bad for parents (couples lose sight of their own relationship when children always come first).
Catherine Buni & Soraya Chemaly, The Unsafety Net: How Social Media Turned Against Women: This piece provides a comprehensive and compelling survey of the disproportionate amount of negative treatment women receive on social media, ranging from sexist and disparaging comments to threats of violence. One of the most important points is the idea that free speech interests are not served when a significant portion of the population is subject to a substantial and sometimes prohibitive tax on speech. That is, the so-called “free speech absolutist” position is actually incoherent. Free speech absolutism just means a preference for the status quo quantity of speech and distribution of speakers — not a dedication to creating an environment where everyone is actually free to speak.
I somehow missed this thought-provoking piece by physician Danielle Teller and Google X head Astro Teller until a friend sent it to me recently. It’s certainly worth a read, regardless whether you agree. The way we think about parenthood and children governs the choices we make about the scope of myriad laws, from funding for public education to parental leave. An excerpt:
Sometime between when we were children and when we had children of our own, parenthood became a religion in America. As with many religions, complete unthinking devotion is required from its practitioners. Nothing in life is allowed to be more important than our children, and we must never speak a disloyal word about our relationships with our offspring. Children always come first. We accept this premise so reflexively today that we forget that it was not always so.
There are doubtless benefits that come from elevating parenthood to the status of a religion, but there are obvious pitfalls as well. Parents who do not feel free to express their feelings honestly are less likely to resolve problems at home. Children who are raised to believe that they are the center of the universe have a tough time when their special status erodes as they approach adulthood. Most troubling of all, couples who live entirely child-centric lives can lose touch with one another to the point where they have nothing left to say to one another when the kids leave home.
My new Huffington Post column on the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear five same-sex marriage cases is up. I explain why Justice Ginsburg is wrong, and there is a “need to rush” to reach full marriage equality in all fifty states.
From my piece:
When the Supreme Court stayed the decision striking down the ban on same-sex marriage in Utah, over 1300 same-sex couples had already married in Utah. These already-married couples litigated to have their rights recognized, and Judge Dale Kimball held that those rights should receive recognition. “Legal uncertainties and lost rights cause harm each day,” he wrote.
It’s also worth thinking about what might happen if a Republican presidential candidate wins in 2016. I am not sure that those who think there is “no rush” now will still agree if that comes to pass.