The RightsCast will return next week with a conversation with Osamudia James (Miami) about white identity and affirmative action.
I highly recommend this recent article by Ann E. Tweedy and Karen Yescavage, “Employment Discrimination Against Bisexuals: An Empirical Study,” which is out this year in the William & Mary Journal of Women & Law. Among many other interesting, provocative, and troubling findings, the authors’ research found that 51.7% of bisexual people had experienced workplace discrimination, but only a small percentage (3%) had sought internal recourse, and none had sued.
In my own experience looking at the rates of lawsuits by multiracial people, one reason that targets of discrimination seldom seek recourse is that their claims don’t fit comfortably into the litigation narratives established by plaintiffs conventionally perceived as “monoracial.” Perhaps part of the story for bisexual targets of discrimination is a similar one.The piece demonstrates the importance of empirical research to doctrinal analysis and is well worth a read.
The Washington Post has some useful coverage by Jeff Guo of Wyoming’s law that makes it a crime to collect data from both private and public lands for purposes of providing those data to the federal government. The article builds on a Slate piece that my University of Denver colleague Justin Pidot published last week and quotes Justin in the article. An excerpt:
“Government shouldn’t be in the business of concealing wrongdoing. When you have a state government creating a law criminalizing people revealing truthful information about illegal conduct, then something’s gone horribly astray in our democracy.”
The law is unconstitutional in a number of ways, and the chilling effect on citizens’ First Amendment rights — both the right to free speech and the right to petition the government — is particularly troubling.
The forthcoming decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the same-sex marriage case currently before the Supreme Court, will doubtless have all sorts of repercussions regardless of the result in the case. One interesting and less-discussed consequence might be the revision of norms surrounding the longstanding and persistent tradition of women changing their last names when they marry men.
I wrote a few blog posts about marital name-changing a while back, and I recommend Elizabeth Emens fascinating article “Changing Name Changing” for a thoughtful scholarly discussion of the topic. My own view is that people — regardless of sex, and regardless of the sex of the person they marry — should do whatever they like with their names after they get married. Any choice is potentially a good one. Some people might prefer to keep their last names for professional continuity or to avoid the annoyance of a legal name change. Others might prefer to change their name to that of a spouse because they prefer the spouse’s name or wish to distance themselves from aspects of their pasts. Other couples might choose to hyphenate, or to adopt an entirely new name.
Law students and law review advisors should check out Adriane Peralta’s excellent article in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal about the underrepresentation of women of color in board positions on law review. Peralta makes a compelling case that a lack of women of color in leadership positions changes law review culture and function, and not for the better.
I’ve realized that many of the regular viewers and users of The RightsCast are either writing finals, taking finals, or grading finals this week and next, and perhaps getting ready for graduation too. I don’t want any of my wonderful guests to slide under the radar, so I’ll hold off on releasing a new episode for another week or two. In the meantime, please feel free to check out the episode archive.
My colleague Justin Pidot has a piece in Slate about a new law passed in Wyoming with troubling First Amendment implications, as well as many other constitutional problems. The law criminalizes collecting data on both public and private lands and providing it to the government. An excerpt from the piece: Continue reading
Episode 10 of The RightsCast features César García Hernández, one of my wonderful colleagues at the University of Denver School of Law and an expert on the growing intersection of criminal and immigration law. This week’s episode is Part 2 of a two-part interview with César.
In the interview as a whole, César discusses his article “Naturalizing Immigration Imprisonment,” which is forthcoming in the California Law Review. He is the author of many highly regarded articles about the intersection of criminal and immigration law, and also runs the crImmigration.com blog, an award-winning blog about the intersection of criminal law and immigration law that is widely read among both professors and practitioners. To keep up with recent developments, you can find César on Twitter under the handle @crimmigration.
Immigration-related imprisonment has become an increasingly prominent feature of both criminal and civil immigration law enforcement and understanding why this is and the consequences for the justice system and for migrants is a critical step in immigration reform. Here’s an excerpt from César’s eloquent interview:
“Is it morally justifiable to confine children? Is it morally justifiable to confine people who are mentally incapacitated? Is it even morally justifiable to confine people who have violated a law that says they need the federal government’s permission to come here when there’s no indication those individuals are a danger to society? They don’t pose a threat to you or to me or our communities. . . . The fact of the matter is that if you give people a legitimate shot at getting right with immigration law, most of them are going to take it.”
Watch the rest here.
The Aurora theater shooting trial is big news in Colorado right now. Everything about this trial is unusual, from the 9000-person jury pool to the fact that one of the 24 jurors and alternates is a survivor of the Columbine school shooting who was childhood friends with the shooters and had gone to prom with one of the victims. I spoke with CBS Evening News, the Wall Street Journal, and CCTV about some of the issues in the case.