I had a wonderful conversation this week with Anthony Kreis of the University of Georgia about his work on the history of the freedom to marry. His most recent article talks about the parallels and contrasts between the move toward interracial marriage legality and same-sex marriage legality. We also chatted about marriage equality before the Supreme Court and what’s next for LGBT rights — made even more pertinent by Indiana’s recent bill allowing businesses to discriminate against LGBT people.
I’m pleased to help spread the word about the 2015 Robert T. Matsui Writing Competition, which sounds like a wonderful opportunity for law students. Here is the information I received:
[W]e are seeking submissions from law students for the 2015 Robert T. Matsui Writing Competition. The competition is open to all law students in the United States. Submissions for the 2015 Competition must be received by June 1, 2015, 11:59 PM EST, and the winner will be announced on or about August 1, 2015. The winner of the 2015 Competition will receive a monetary award of $1,500, and the winning entry will be published in the Asian Pacific American Law Journal (APALJ), at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law subject to the journal’s standard editorial process and copyright policy.
Submissions shall not exceed 15,000 words (inclusive of footnote text), and may address any topic of interest so long as it reasonably relates to Asian Pacific Americans and the law.
More information available here.
I interviewed Khaled for Episode 4 of The RightsCast, “Legal Construction of Arab American Identity,” during which we touched on some of the same themes relating to discrimination against Arab Americans. Watch here:
Earlier this week, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the state’s bias-intimidation statute was unconstitutional. The New York Times summarizes the decision as follows:
The state’s statute on bias intimidation was the only one of its kind in the nation in saying that defendants can be convicted of bias intimidation if their victims “reasonably believed” they were harassed or intimidated because of their race, color, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.
The court, the state’s highest, unanimously ruled that the . . . statute was “unconstitutionally vague,” because it does not give defendants fair notice of when they are crossing the line to commit a crime.
Notice that the statute does not require the defendant to know whether this particular victim actually believed that the harassment or intimidation resulted from race, color, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation [hereinafter “race” as shorthand for the list]. Rather, it requires that a reasonable victim would have believed that the harassment or intimidation resulted from race. Continue reading
I was so pleased to have the opportunity to talk with Josh Douglas (University of Kentucky) for this week’s episode of The RightsCast. Josh discusses his research relating to how courts should police state election laws. Check out the full episode here:
I’ve also lined up a fantastic slate of guests for the next several weeks of The RightsCast. The tentative schedule is as follows: Continue reading
I am pleased to help spread the word that the Denver University Law Review will be offering its second annual Emerging Scholar Award. Those who would like to be considered for the award may enter by submitting an article for publication.
Anyone is eligible who has received his or her J.D. as of March 1, 2015 and who has not yet accepted a tenure-track teaching position or held a full-time teaching position for more than three years. The selected recipient will receive an award of $500 and publication in Issue 1, Volume 93, scheduled for early 2016.
The Denver University Law Review will accept submissions for the Emerging Scholar Award from March 23, 2015, until March 30, 2015. The Articles Committee will review all submitted articles and respond to authors by April 13, 2015. Submission details are available here.
I am also pleased to report that last year’s Emerging Scholar Award recipient, Goldburn P. Maynard, Jr., recently accepted a tenure-track job offer with the University of Louisville School of Law. Professor Maynard is currently a Visiting Assistant Professor at the Florida State University School of Law, and was previously a Bigelow fellow. His article, “Addressing Wealth Disparities: Reimagining Wealth Taxation as a Tool for Building Wealth,” is available on SSRN.
In this week’s episode of The RightsCast, I interview Professor Andrew Ferguson (UDC Law) about his article “Big Data and Predictive Reasonable Suspicion,” which is forthcoming in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. It’s a fascinating conversation about the way that big data and emerging technology are changing the way that police interact with citizens and, as a result, Fourth Amendment doctrine. Enjoy!
My latest article, “Identity Entrepreneurs,” is forthcoming in the California Law Review. I’m thrilled to be working with a journal that has published so many of the seminal works relating to identity and discrimination. The abstract to the piece is available after the jump: Continue reading
I meant to post this to the blog earlier and it slipped my mind — this week’s episode of The RightsCast features Professor Jessica Clarke of the University of Minnesota Law School and can be viewed below. It’s a fascinating comparison of sexual harassment cases in which the harasser and target are the same sex, and cases in which they are opposite sexes. Enjoy!
Several years ago, some researchers at Harvard performed an experiment involving 46 Asian-American female students who were undergraduates at Harvard University. They divided the students into three groups. They had the first group fill out a questionnaire that primed them to think about their Asian identity. The second group filled out a questionnaire that primed them to think about their female identity. And the third group — the control — filled out a neutral questionnaire. Then the researchers had all three groups attempt the same difficult math problems.
The first group, which was primed to think about Asian identity, got 54% of the questions correct. The control group got 49% of the questions correct. The third group, which was primed to think about female identity, got only 43% of the questions correct. All the differences were statistically significant.
The results shouldn’t be surprising to anyone familiar with the considerable research on stereotype threat. Stereotype threat is the risk of confirming negative stereotypes about one’s group, and it’s been shown over and over to affect performance. Asians are stereotyped as being good at math, so making Asian identity salient caused the students to perform better on the math problems. Women are stereotyped as being bad at math, so making gender identity salient caused the students to perform worse on the math problems. Continue reading