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.
This report summarizes a study on the interaction between ability to obtain an abortion and domestic abuse. “[W]e found that the incidents of domestic violence by the man involved in the pregnancy declined among woman had the abortion but stayed steady when she carried the pregnancy to term. This indicates that being unable to have the abortion tethered women to violent men, while women who have the abortion were more able to escape abusive relationships.”
A poignant remembrance of Maria Fernandes, who worked three shifts at three different Dunkin Donuts to make ends meet, then tragically died in her car while napping between shifts. “She dreamed of working two jobs, not three. She dreamed of sleeping, really sleeping, for six or seven hours at a stretch. . . . And she took pains to help anyone who needed it, regularly paying for coffee and doughnuts for a homeless man, even when she fell behind on her bills. (He showed up at her funeral this month, to pay his respects.)”
I already noted this piece on the value of legal scholarship by Danielle Citron and Robin West, but for anyone who missed it, it’s worth a read. “Cost-benefit analysis now is woven into laws and regulations. Much of the analytic power of this legal academic movement has become conventional wisdom, which itself is now being re-thought and challenged by a new wave of scholars. Critical legal scholarship, decried for thirty years for its lack of utility, has inspired novel interpretations of seemingly settled doctrine by arguing that law is far less determinate than liberal legal orthodoxy held. An entire generation of students and others came to see redemptive possibilities in law that otherwise might have been foreclosed, such as deploying Title VII to take on the regulation of employees’ self-expression through dress and hair style. . . . [Such] scholarship plays a long game, not seeking to affect immediate court decisions or legislative enactments. Its impact is felt well down the road.”
If you aren’t already following Ta-Nehisi Coates’ online book club for Michelle Alexander’s pathbreaking book The New Jim Crow, check it out. The book club is on Chapters 4-5 this week. My favorite part is that Coates insists you have to read to participate in the comments. If only all book clubs worked that way.
This is an interesting story about the need for more lawyers in rural areas. The piece cites the statistic that 20% of Americans live in rural areas, but only 2% of lawyers are located there — a classic example of the gap in access to justice. “Those still practicing law in small towns are often nearing retirement age, without anyone to take over their practices. And without an attorney nearby, rural residents may have to drive 100 miles or more to take care of routine matters like child custody, estate planning and taxes. For people of limited means, a long drive is a logistical hardship, requiring gas, a day away from work and sometimes an overnight stay. And census information shows that rural communities are disproportionately poor.”
Things like this shouldn’t surprise me anymore, but they still do. The Republican Party used a stock image of a black woman to illustrate the point that “Republicans Are Black” — perhaps because they had difficulty finding a black woman who was a Republican, or (more likely) because they didn’t want to expend the effort. The Daily Banter has a funny article about all the other ways this particular stock photo has been used.
This ostentatious display of racial diversity is precisely the phenomenon I wrote about in my 2013 Harvard Law Review article “Racial Capitalism” — the Republican Party is deriving social and (by extension) economic value from the racial identity of the woman in the photo. Put differently, they are extracting value from her race and using it to benefit themselves. This is incredibly common: while I was going through the editing process for “Racial Capitalism,” I had the chance to speak with several members of the communications department at the University of Denver, all of whom said they’d been asked to photoshop a racial minority into promotional materials at some point in their careers.
This week I’ll be speaking at UCLA as part of a symposium on Cheryl Harris’ “Whiteness as Property,” which came out just over twenty years ago in the Harvard Law Review. The program, with links to concurrent sessions, is available here. The symposium is a full schedule from October 2-4. I’ll be speaking on Saturday about a work in progress called “Identity Entrepreneurs,” which is a follow-up to my own Harvard Law Review article “Racial Capitalism,” which came out last year.
Unfortunately I will miss the Thursday events due to a commitment back here in Denver, but it should be a great event from start to finish. I think CLE credit is available for almost all of the various panels.