Friday, February 22, 2019

Nancy Rommelmann: Outrage Culture is Out of Control

A woman shows support for sexual assault survivors at the #MeToo Survivors' March in Los Angeles on Nov. 12, 2017. (Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

Los Angeles Times, February 22, 2019

FEB 22, 2019

It was 9:30 at night when my husband slid his iPad across the bed to me. On it was an email an ex-employee had sent to current and former staff of his coffee-roasting company in Portland, Ore. The ex-employee explained that a new YouTube series I was hosting, #MeNeither Show, in which another journalist and I discussed, among other topics, some excesses of the #MeToo movement, was “vile, dangerous and extremely misguided.”

She considered the show hostile to assault survivors, and felt it her duty to alert several newspapers that my opinions posed a potential threat to my husband’s female employees and the community at large.

I told my husband it would blow over. After all, there was no suggestion in the email that he’d ever been inappropriate; only that my views were dangerous. And I hadn’t worked in the business in anything but a supportive capacity for two years.

Why ask questions, when it’s more expedient, maybe more kickass, to turn anything you might disagree with into an emergency?

I couldn’t have been more wrong. It blew up, and in less than a month, a 15-year-old business with a spotless track record is now in danger of collapse. Baristas quit and wholesale accounts fled, their unease fed by a local press that keeps banging the drum.

This is the current pitch of outrage culture, where voicing an opinion someone says she sees as a threat qualifies you for instant annihilation, no questions asked. Why ask questions, when it’s more expedient, maybe more kickass, to turn anything you might disagree with into an emergency?

A sense of emergency is what people on all sides have developed an addiction to. Show us the next person to hate and we are so there; we take an animalistic pleasure in destroying the kid in the MAGA hat, in fashioning a decades-old interview with John Wayne into a knife with which to posthumously eviscerate the actor. And then we look for the next target.

Because we need that next hit, we need it right now. Being in a constant state of emergency — a condition in which people notoriously make terrible decisions — is like having a fire raging inside the body, one that needs to be fed. It needs new fuel, and so we seek new enemies.

Meanwhile some of us are watching from the sidelines, trying to stay out of the way, hoping not to be next. (Good luck with that.)

Maybe the fractiousness in which we are currently living, people sectioning themselves into smaller and smaller tribes, is a side effect of the addiction. It needs an unlimited supply of people to hate, and the smaller the in-group, the larger the potential enemy pool. That this creates rancor and instability for everyone is a price addicts are willing to pay; indeed, it may taste like victory.

While those engaging in these fights may be a tiny but vocal minority, they are nevertheless a contagion. They value feelings over facts. They reject direct confrontation, preferring to scrap it out online or letting the media do their work for them. Those of us who can still stomach cable news watch as opponents chew each other’s faces off in prime time. Pundits and politicians who should wait for the truth to be revealed instead turn today’s story into a cudgel and, when proven wrong, refuse to walk it back, and who cares anyway? There will be a new epidemic of hate-shredding in the morning, in an hour, and as soon as it’s there, we engage. Or we don’t, and are spattered with the blood regardless.

Enter the Fray: First takes on the news of the minute »
It can be enlivening, certainly, to get caught up in a fight. However, one should come armed with courage, rather than, say, surreptitiously taking photos of me in public and posting them on social media, or anonymously calling all my husband’s vendors and telling them to stop working with a company that supports “rape culture.” Yes, that’s a quote. This campaign, led by so-called feminists, sees no irony in trying to drive a man out of business because his wife voices opinions of her own.

Still, I don’t regard the people pitching this battle as evil. I see them as unwilling to confront the world beyond their small chosen groups. Humans are hugely nuanced and complex and fascinating, and they are great to talk to. Why anyone, especially young people, who in Portland are in the main the ones waging these campaigns, would want to experience less of humanity strikes me as profoundly sad.

I have been asked whether I hate the people who started this. The answer is I don’t. I see them as afraid of the ideas of others. With this in mind, I have several times offered to have conversations about issues they evidently find dangerous enough to go to war over. No one has taken me up on the offer.

Nancy Rommelmann is a journalist and the author most recently of the book “To the Bridge: A True Story of Motherhood and Murder.” Follow her at Twitter @nancyromm

Monday, February 18, 2019

Former Congressman Anthony Weiner is Out of Jail. That's the Bad News

Anthony Weiner
There is no good news.

Anthony Weiner was the husband of Huma Abedin, the senior aide to Hillary Clinton before, during and after the Clinton email scam. If it weren't for Weiner's sexting a 15-year old girl from his computer, we might not have known about his wife Huma and Hillary Clinton using Clinton's private email for classified government materials. See my post on,
"Anthony Weiner Is Released From Prison, Moved To Re-Entry Center in Brooklyn"

As I wrote in that post, Conservative Group Judicial Watch has led the way on exposing the massive corruption of both Hillary and Bill Clinton for decades. JW's work is a part of American jurisprudence history. And the story is continuing today in federal court.
Kudos to Judicial Watch for protecting the public interest in transparency and political integrity. President Tom Fitton's book The Corruption Chronicles is a wonderful book which should be read in its entirety.
I believe in second chances, but someone should keep an eye on this guy. Please.
Betsy Combier
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice

Anthony Weiner pops up outside Bronx halfway house after prison release

NY POST, February 18, 2019
By Cedar Attanasio, Bruce Golding and Lia Eustachewich

Anthony Weiner has gone from hard time to a Bronx halfway house after being convicted for sexting an underage girl.
But even a registered sex offender’s got to eat — and The Post was there Sunday as Weiner popped outside his new Bronx digs to grab a delivery order.
Wearing his signature Mets baseball cap, the 54-year-old disgraced ex-congressman — who served 15 months of a 21-month federal prison sentence for sexting with the 15-year-old — briefly exited to greet a food deliveryman ferrying his $22.50 order.
He’ll serve out the next three months in the Bronx facility before being released outright in May with an accumulated three months off for good behavior.
On the menu for Weiner was hearty Italian fare from Brother’s Pizza a few blocks away. He ordered a $9.50 dish of homemade lasagna and $10 penne alla vodka with grilled chicken, along with two Snapples at $1.50 apiece to wash it all down.
“Hold on a second here. Hold on a second. They’re in here?” Weiner grilled the deliveryman around 2 p.m. after he was handed a large pizza box and brown paper bag with straws poking out at the door of the GEO Care Inc. facility in Fordham Heights.
“Everything’s in there,” the worker answered.
But Weiner could be in hot water for the Sunday feast: The food exchange took place right next to a sign that reads in all caps: “You May Not Bring Food or Beverages Into This Facility. Stop. No Exceptions!!”
After grabbing his food, Weiner couldn’t beat it fast enough.
“How you doing, buddy? Not allowed to talk, I’m sorry, my friend,” he told a Post reporter with a meek smile before ducking back inside.
The former politician left a paltry $2.50 tip on his online order, employees said.
The convicted pervert — dressed in a blue fleece zip-up and baggy navy sweatpants — spent the bulk of his sentence at the Federal Medical Center in Devens, Mass.
But Federal Bureau of Prisons records show he was transferred from the lockup to the halfway house, one of many facilities across the nation under the Residential Reentry Management program.
Before Weiner emerged from the halfway house, his visibly impatient deliveryman — ironically named Carlos, given Weiner’s sexting alter-ego was “Carlos Danger” — paced back and forth while calling the fallen politician repeatedly and asking passersby how to get in.
A restaurant receipt obtained by The Post showed no name on Weiner’s order — just an address, phone number and direction to “ring the silver buzzer.”
“He wasn’t answering his phone,” Carlos later groused about Weiner, saying he had no idea he was delivering to the infamous sex addict.
“He’s a f–king pervert,” Carlos said after being told.
The food worker said that after he completed the delivery, Weiner was so clueless that he rang him back.
“He was like, ‘You called?’ ” Carlos recalled.
Weiner is set to be released from federal custody May 14, thanks to good conduct behind bars that shaved about three months off his sentence.
His political career flamed out starting in 2011, when he resigned from Congress after being forced to admit sending lewd photos to women he’d met online.
Two years later, his comeback bid for mayor was torpedoed by revelations that he sexted with a woman under the pseudonym “Carlos Danger.”
His creepy behavior took a more disturbing turn in 2016 when he started up an online relationship with the teen — despite knowing full well that she was underage.
The fall from grace was capped in May 2017, when he pleaded guilty to exchanging X-rated texts with the North Carolina teen.
“I have a sickness, but I do not have an excuse,” Weiner sobbed in court at the time.
After the halfway house, Weiner will spend three years on supervised release, pay a $10,000 fine and register as a sex offender.
Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, Weiner’s wife and the mother of their young son, filed for divorce just hours after he pleaded guilty. Abedin later withdrew the petition to settle matters out of court.
Neither the BOP nor Weiner’s or Abedin’s lawyers returned messages seeking comment.
An employee at the halfway house feigned ignorance when asked about Weiner’s stay — after he was spotted there.
“Who?” she said, before slamming the phone.

Sunday, December 30, 2018

The Independent Institute Gives the California Golden Fleece Award To...Lawmakers and Government Employees Who Misuse Public Money

November 9, 2018

OAKLAND, CA — California taxpayers have been exploited as piggy banks to settle claims against state employees for sexual misconduct, but the public has been kept in the dark about abuses and settlements. For this reason, the Independent Institute has named this unjust system winner of the sixth California Golden Fleece® Award, given quarterly to government employees or programs that violate the public trust.
The report examines the use of taxpayer money to settle sexual harassment claims against California lawmakers and government employees, as well as their cloak of secrecy: nondisclosure agreements and laws that give public officials special privileges to hide the truth.
“The use of power to shield the truth from the public is a common pathology of government,” said Independent Institute Senior Fellow Lawrence McQuillan, Ph.D., creator and director of the California Golden Fleece® Awards. “Transparency and accountability are central to any well-functioning organization, especially governments,” he added.
The lack of transparency is not unique to California. At the federal level, a law ironically named the Congressional Accountability Act, established an account in 1995 to pay sexual harassment settlements, which shielded lawmakers from disclosure and personal financial responsibility.
To effect meaningful change, the report says, California must enact a broad set of reforms that are aligned and integrated with a system that provides due process for the accusers and the accused. While due process is a key pillar of America’s legal tradition, another must also be properly accommodated: transparency.
McQuillan says California should ban the use of taxpayer money to settle sexual misconduct claims against legislators, their staffs, and other government employees. Laws must also provide transparency regarding sexual misconduct complaints and investigations.
Read the entire report here.
The Independent Institute is a non-profit, research, and educational organization that promotes the power of independent thinking to boldly advance peaceful, prosperous, and free societies grounded in a commitment to human worth and dignity. For more information, visit For media inquiries, contact Communications Manager Rob Ade:; (510) 632-1366, ext. 114.

Tuesday, October 9, 2018

Law Professors Say That Sexism is The Problem

250 Law Profs Release Statement: ‘The Problem With Sexual Harassment Is Sexism’

Two-hundred-fifty law professors nationwide, as of Friday morning, signed an open statement condemning sexual harassment, which they sent to Senator Richard Blumenthal’s office on Thursday. The letter outlines ten principles to further combat sexual harassment, building on the momentum of the #MeToo movement to further advance equality in the United States.
Read the full statement below.
We, the undersigned law professors interested in eliminating sexual harassment, seek to offer a new vision and agenda for eliminating sexual harassment and advancing equality. We are inspired by the #MeToo movement: the courage and sheer number of people who have come forward to report sexual harassment and abuse, including in the chambers of the U.S. Senate, the solidarity among activists, the media’s in-depth and sustained coverage, and the public’s willingness to hear and believe so many victims all suggest this is a watershed moment for change. Spurred by recent events and renewed activism, we wish to contribute to the current momentum by broadening the conversation to include the law. To reduce sexual harassment and move toward a fairer, more inclusive society for everyone, we offer the following principles for addressing sexual harassment gained from years of working for progress within the law.

Ten Principles for Addressing Sexual Harassment

Principle #1: The problem with sexual harassment is sexism, not sexual desire.
Sexual harassment often refers to unwanted sexual advances and assaults, usually by powerful male bosses or benefactors against less powerful women. This is an important pattern of harassment, one that our society must address. Yet, not all harassment fits this pattern, and even this pattern is more about gender than it is about sexual attraction.
Contrary to popular perceptions, harassment is not always sexual in nature; it assumes a variety of nonsexual forms. Nor is it usually perpetrated by bosses or power brokers, nor is it always a male-to-female phenomenon. Men harass other men who don’t conform to prescribed images of who “real men” are supposed to be, for example. Women sometimes harass other women, as well as men.
In all these scenarios, the bottom line is that harassment is more about upholding status and identity than it is about expressing sexual desire or sexuality. In the usual case, harassment provides a way for some men to monopolize prized roles in society, and to maintain a superior masculine position and sense of self. Even where unwanted sexual misconduct occurs, it is typically a telltale sign of biased attitudes or broader patterns of inequality such as gender stereotyping and sex segregation, as explained below.
Principle #2: Harassment includes many forms of nonsexual sexism and abuse, not just sexual misconduct.
Recent events have focused on unwanted sexual advances, including serious sexual assaults. These acts cause serious harm. They humiliate victims, brand them as inferiors, and cause lasting psychological anguish and trauma. As the #MeToo movement insists, survivors of such sexual harassment and abuse deserve respect, empathy, and justice from society and the legal system to address these harms.
The same is true of many other nonsexual forms of sexism and abuse that women experience simply because they are women. Patronizing treatment, physical assaults, hostile or ridiculing behavior, social ostracism and exclusion, and work sabotage are all used to make women feel inferior, for example, just like sexual come-ons. In fact, research shows that nonsexual hostilities are more common than unwanted sexual overtures. Typically, even explicitly sexual overtures are accompanied by other forms of sex-based harassment and disrespect, revealing that sexual misconduct is often less about hooking up than about putting women down.
For these reasons, the laws prohibiting workplace and school harassment now prohibit all sex-based harassment, sexual and nonsexual, in a variety of institutional and social settings.
Principle #3: Sexual harassment is linked to sex segregation and inequality.
Reformers who highlight the importance of gender parity are right: sex segregation and inequality are a major cause of sex harassment. Research shows that harassment is more prevalent where women work in traditionally male-dominated jobs or settings, for example.
Women’s absence from some positions or spaces and predominance in others fosters gender stereotypes like “men are leaders” and “women aren’t tough enough to lead”—ideas that make the underlying segregation and inequality seem natural when they are not. These stereotypes foster harassment, encouraging men to view and treat women as “different” and second class. By harassing women who dare to enter traditionally male institutions or roles, or imposing sexist demands that remind women they are still women in a man’s world, men can shore up their masculine status and sense of masculine superiority. Harassment in turn reinforces the original segregation and stereotypes by driving women away and confirming ideas that they can’t cut it or don’t belong. Leaders often fail to respond or look the other way, completing the cycle.
Sex segregation not only affects mostly-male institutions: Women who inhabit traditionally female positions and spaces are often at increased risk of harassment and exploitation, too, especially where their roles require displaying heterosexual sex appeal or performing other stereotypically female roles. Without the power and safety that comes with equal representation and numbers, women cannot effectively counter stereotypes or deter or resist harassment. Combatting sexual harassment means eliminating sex segregation and ensuring that women and men work, learn, and socialize alongside each other as equals.
Principle #4: Same-sex harassment and LGBTQ harassment are prevalent and prohibited forms of sex discrimination, too.
Women are not the only victims of harassment. Men, too, frequently experience sex-based harassment—mostly at the hands of other men. At times, powerful men prey on other men for sexual favors, just as men do upon women. But more often, men harass other men through acts of gender-based hostility—including hostility toward those who don’t live up to images of “real men” prescribed by mainstream codes of masculinity. Although female-on-female harassment is less visible than other types, women do sometimes demean and ostracize women perceived as improperly feminine, including lesbians. Harassment against LGBTQ people is widespread, with transgender individuals experiencing the highest rates of all. By attacking LGBTQ people and heterosexual individuals who fail to conform to prescribed gender norms, harassers reinforce their status and shore up their own sense of self.
Because harassment and discrimination against LGBTQ individuals is necessarily rooted in prescriptive stereotypes about appropriate appearance, sexual partners, and gender identity, the law has rightly begun to recognize that sexual orientation and transgender harassment is a form of illegal sex discrimination. This is true regardless of whether the motive or means are sexual in nature or whether the harassment is directed at someone of the opposite or same sex.
Principle #5: Race-based harassment and intersectional race/sex harassment and discrimination must be specifically addressed.
Women and men of color experience higher rates of racial-ethnic harassment than white people. Women of color also report and experience higher rates of harassment than white women, often on the basis of both sex and race. Men of color may also be more likely than white men to experience gender-based harassment at the hands of other men. In general, people who experience sex-based harassment are more likely to experience racial-ethnic harassment, highlighting the importance of intersectional analysis pioneered by Black feminists.
Black women have been subjected to sexual and labor exploitation for centuries, dating back to slavery. Women of color generally face increased risk of harassment, and pernicious myths about their sexuality, as well as persistent nonsexual negative stereotypes. Men of color, too, face pervasive stereotypes and are sometimes targeted for harassment or discrimination, or accused of it, because of their race and sex. Women of color, as well as immigrants and undocumented workers, are also disproportionately clustered in low-paying, unskilled occupations, leaving them further vulnerable to and less able to resist stereotyping and harassment. The law has properly begun to acknowledge the foundational role of race in contributing to sex-based harassment, along with other structural factors as discussed below.
Principle #6: Broader structural vulnerabilities, as well as arbitrary unchecked authority, must be reduced.
Many women find themselves in occupations or situations that leave them vulnerable to sex-based harassment and exploitation. Hotel housekeepers work alone; agricultural workers are “out of sight and out of mind” for the general public; and waitresses who rely on tips may feel compelled to tolerate harassment, for example. Students must depend on teachers and coaches for advancement and advice.
Even apart from such specialized vulnerabilities, many people also face a more generalized risk for harassment and abuse—bosses or benefactors who have unchecked, carte blanche authority to make or break their careers and life prospects based on the higher-ups’ own subjective say-so. The gendered character of the hierarchy contributes to the problem—because of sex segregation and inequality, too many bosses and benefactors are men—but so does the nature of the hierarchy itself. Research shows that managers who are given unfettered, discretionary authority over subordinates, for example, are more likely to abuse it. This is unnecessary and wrong. Excessive, unchecked discretion not only provides a ready mechanism for discrimination; it also provides a powerful platform for sexual misconduct and sex-based harassment and intimidation. Time-honored legal principles prohibit excessively subjective, unconstrained discretion, incentivizing greater objectivity, oversight, openness, and accountability to constrain arbitrary authority that facilitates harassment and abuse.
Principle #7: Institutions should rely on fair process to determine whether sexual behavior is unwelcome and harassing, rather than simply banning all sexual behavior across the board.
In an effort to avoid legal liability, many institutions have adopted policies that broadly prohibit all sexually-oriented conversation and behavior, regardless of their purpose or effect. Some organizations even ban dating among same-level members. Such sweeping prohibitions tend to be unhelpful; they can even hinder the cause of eliminating harassment and discrimination by creating fear and encouraging higher-ups and peers to avoid women, further fueling patterns of sex segregation and inequality.
Common sense suggests that not all sexual conversations, invitations, or relationships are discriminatory or harmful; this is why the law requires that harassment be unwanted or unwelcome. Power and representation in a given context matter. In less sex-segregated, more gender equal settings, for example, women are less likely to experience sexual harassment. In other cases, dating relationships among colleagues are welcome.
Overzealous approaches that seek to eliminate all sexual expression invite cynicism and backlash against initiatives to combat harassment. They fail to promote equality for women, while leaving LGBTQ people, men of color, and others who are stereotyped as sexually predatory vulnerable to disproportionate punishment. To help prevent discriminatory enforcement of harassment policies, and to ensure basic fairness for both complainants and people accused of sexual misconduct, it is important to provide thorough, impartial, and evenhanded investigations and hearings for all complaints.
Principle #8: Support for victims of harassment and people who stand up for them must be strengthened.
To end harassment, societal institutions must create conditions and cultures that ensure equal inclusion and respect for everyone. Leaders can provide time, money, and organizational resources to prevent harassment, investigate complaints fairly, monitor results, and establish a climate of respect for all. They can also take steps to desegregate along sex and gender lines and create structural conditions in which equality and respect can flourish.
But addressing harassment is too important to be left to leadership alone. Eliminating sexual harassment requires solidarity with those who come forward to complain. Harassment can be eliminated only if people who are harassed are safe in coming forward, and if other people can safely stand up for them. All members of society have a vital stake and role to play in creating nondiscriminatory institutions and social spaces. Politicians, reporters, educators, activists, shareholders, consumers, and ordinary citizens can also stand up for victims—and for what is right—across traditional boundaries of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, national origin, and socioeconomic and occupational status.
Research shows that most people who experience harassment do not report it, largely because they fear retaliation—and with good reason. Without empowering victims and their allies to reveal and protest perceived wrongdoing, there is no way to eliminate harassment or to move society forward.
Principle #9: Victims of sexual harassment should have open and equal access to the legal system.
Sexual harassment is a form of discrimination, and it should be treated the same as other types of discrimination. To a large extent the law recognizes this principle. But there are exceptions. Even though hostile work environment harassment is simply discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment, for example, the Supreme Court has said employers do not face the usual strict liability for this type of harassment. Further, employees who are not fired or demoted must first complain internally to their employers before turning to the courts for redress. Once there, the law requires them to prove elements not required of other employees who experience discrimination. The Court has set unduly high standards that prevents many victims from having their day in court, let alone winning. Judges often turn a blind eye to sexism, refusing to find that harassment is because of sex when it is clearly driven by sexism and stereotyping.
These barriers are unacceptable. It is unfair and unwise to subject harassment cases to more onerous legal rules than other forms of discrimination. It suggests that victims of sexual misconduct are somehow responsible or at fault for the harassment. All victims of harassment and discrimination should have recourse to the legal system on equal, accessible terms.
Principle #10: Prevention and remedies must move beyond punishing individual wrongdoers to encourage systemic institutional change.
Harassment is a large-scale problem; it requires bold solutions. Individual harassers must be held accountable for their actions, as discussed above. Allowing harassers to rise to prominence, remain in their positions, resign, or disappear from the public eye quietly does nothing to prevent them from causing more harm. But institutions and society must do much more. Even if individuals are held to account, other harassers will eventually take their place unless the underlying conditions and cultures that fostered the harassment in the first place are changed.
Ending harassment requires moving beyond individual solutions to adopt approaches that hold institutions accountable for harassment and its sources. The law should lead the way, but recent Supreme Court decisions make it difficult to seek justice along these lines. The Court has cut back on the availability of class actions, for example, and upheld mandatory arbitration agreements for harassment and discrimination claims. These decisions force complainants into private arbitration forums that tend to favor the status quo and prevent people from challenging injustices together. Not only do such decisions limit access to justice for people who have experienced harassment and discrimination: all citizens are hindered in obtaining meaningful reforms when those in power treat harassment as a problem of individual bad actors, rather than as a product of the broader structures and environments in which those individuals work, learn, and interview.
Employees, advocates, policymakers, educators, labor unions, activists, students, and ordinary citizens must think expansively about how to facilitate such systemic changes to prevent and remedy harassment and discrimination. We must move beyond individual punishment to embrace actions that will alter the structure and culture of our institutions and encourage greater equality, respect, and solidarity among those who inhabit them. Such actions can and should be undertaken inside and outside the legal system, inspired by enduring legal ideals of equality and fairness for all.
As legal scholars and educators, we know that law alone cannot create change. Yet we know also that change rarely occurs without the law. For over forty years, employees, activists, educators, and policymakers have looked to the legal system to address sexual harassment, particularly in the context of the workplace and campus. These efforts have produced important theories and information, steps forward and setbacks, that yield important lessons for the future. The laws against discrimination provide an important tool in the fight against sexual harassment. But broader reforms are needed to address the conditions in which harassment flourishes, and to make legal and social institutions more responsive to the problem. The foregoing principles are a place to start.
Alphabetical, institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only
Last updated 10/4/18 at 6:00 p.m. EST
Kathryn Abrams, Professor of Law, Berkeley Law School
Miriam R. Albert, Professor of Skills, Hofstra Law School
Anne L. Alstott, Jacquin D Bierman Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Nadia B. Ahmad, Associate Professor of Law, Barry University School of Law 
Ifeoma Ajunwa, Assistant Professor of Law, Cornell University 
Susan Appleton, Lemma Barkeloo & Phoebe Couzins Professor of Law, Washington University School of Law 
Rachel Arnow-Richman, Professor of Law, University of Denver Sturm College of Law 
Ian Ayres, William K. Townsend Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Sahar Aziz, Professor of Law and Chancellor’s Social Justice Scholar, Rutgers Law School
Rick Bales, Professor, Ohio Northern College of Law
Marsha L. Baum, Professor of Law, University of New Mexico
Nadine Baum, Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Arkansas-Little Rock)
Anita Bernstein, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School 
Beryl Blaustone, Professor of Law, CUNY School of Law 
Amelia Boss, Trustee Professor of Law, Drexel University School of Law
Robin Boyle, Professor of Legal Writing, St. John’s University School of Law 
Grace Ganz Blumberg, Distinguished Professor of Law Emerita, UCLA School of Law 
Stephanie Bornstein, Associate Professor of Law, University of Florida Levin College of Law 
Deborah Brake, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh 
Joanne Brant, Professor of Law, Ohio Northern University College of Law 
Melissa Breger, Professor of Law, Albany Law School 
Patricia Broussard, Professor of Law, Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University College of Law 
Margaret Burnham, Distinguished University Professor of Law, Northeastern University 
Erin Buzuvis, Professor of Law, Western New England University 
Alexander Capron, University Professor and Scott H. Bice Chair in Healthcare Law, Policy and Ethics, University of Southern California 
June Carbone, Robina Chair of Law, University of Minnesota Law School 
Catherine L. Carpenter, Arleigh M. Woods and William T. Woods Professor of Law, Southwestern Law School
Martha Chamallas, Robert J. Lynn Chair in Law, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University 
Gabriel J. Chin, Edward L. Barrett Jr. Chair and Martin Luther King Jr. Professor, University of California, Davis School of Law
Sumi Cho, Professor of Law, DePaul University College of Law 
Carol Chomsky, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School 
Stephen Clark, Professor of Law, Albany Law School 
Jessica Clarke, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt Law School 
Ruth Colker, Distinguished University Professor, Moritz College of Law
Donna Coker, Professor of Law, University of Miami School of Law
Ruth Colker, Distinguished University Professor, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law 
Dana Harrington Conner, Professor of Law, Widener University, Delaware Law School
Kim Diana Connolly, Professor of Law, University at Buffalo School of Law
Elizabeth Cooper, Associate Professor of Law, Fordham Law School
Angela Cornell, Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School
Bridget J. Crawford, Professor of Law, Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University
Mary Crossley, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Ellen E. Deason, Joanne Wharton Murphy Classes of 1965 & 1973 Professor of Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
Deborah Dinner, Associate Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law 
Nancy Dowd, Professor of Law, University of Florida Levin College of Law
Jennifer Drobac, R. Bruce Townsend Professor of Law, Indiana University 
Lauren Edelman, Agnes Roddy Robb Professor of Law and Professor of Sociology, University of California Berkeley 
Jean Eggen, Distinguished Professor Emerita of Law, Delaware Law School – Widener University 
Maxine Eichner, Graham Kenan Distinguished Professor of Law, UNC School of Law 
Kathleen Engel, Research Professor, Suffolk University 
Sam Erman, Associate Professor of Law, USC Gould School of Law
Katie Eyer, Associate Professor of Law, Rutgers University 
Marie Failinger, Professor of Law, Mitchell Hamline School of Law 
Stephanie Farrior, Distinguished Faculty Scholar, Vermont Law School
Zanita E. Fenton, Professor of Law, University of Miami School of Law
Richard Michael Fischl, Professor of Law, University of Connecticut
Linda E. Fisher, Professor of Law, Seton Hall Law School
Joseph Fishkin, Marrs McLean Professor in Law, University of Texas, Austin 
Catherine L. Fisk, Barbara Nachtrieb Armstrong Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley 
Barbara Flagg, Professor of Law Emerita, Washington University 
Akilah Folami, Professor of Law, Hofstra University Law School
Pamela Foohey, Associate Professor, Indiana University Maurer School of Law
Carolina Forell, Professor of Law Emerita, University of Oregon
Susan F. French, Professor of Law Emerita, UCLA School of Law
Clark Freshman, Professor of Law, University of California, Hastings College of the Law 
Martha E. Gaines, Distinguished Clinical Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School
Paula Galowitz, Clinical Professor of Law Emerita, New York University School of Law
Susan N. Gary, Professor of Law, University of Oregon School of Law
Hannah R. Garry, Clinical Professor of Law, USC Gould School of Law
Erika George, Samuel D. Thurman Professor of Law, University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law
Sarah Gerwig-Moore, Associate Professor of Law, Mercer University
Lauren Gilbert, Professor of Law, St. Thomas University School of Law
Rachel Godsil, Professor of Law, Rutgers University
Susan Goldberg, Associate Dean and Associate Professor, Delaware Law of Widener University
Julie Goldscheid, Professor of Law, CUNY School of Law
Jasmine Gonzales Rose, Associate Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh 
Steve Gray, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law, University of Michigan 
Michael Green, Professor of Law, Texas A&M University 
Tristin Green, Professor of Law, University of San Francisco School of Law
Elayne E. Greenberg, Assistant Dean of Dispute Resolution, Professor of Legal Practice, Director of the Carey Center for Dispute Resolution, St. John’s Law School 
Julie A. Greenberg, Professor Emeritus, Thomas Jefferson School of Law 
D. Wendy Greene, Professor of Law, Cumberland School of Law 
David Singh Grewal, Professor, Yale Law School
Ariela Gross, John B. and Alice R. Sharp Professor of Law and History, University of Southern California Gould School of Law 
Joanna L. Grossman, Ellen K. Solender Endowed Chair in Women and Law & Professor of Law, SMU Dedman School of Law 
Aya Gruber, Professor of Law, University of Colorado Law School 
Phoebe Haddon, Chancellor and Professor of Law, Rutgers University School of Law 
Jacqueline Hand, Professor of Law, University of Detroit Mercy School of Law 
Angela P. Harris, Professor Emerita, Distinguished of Law, UC Davis School of Law
Dina F. Haynes, Professor of Law, New England Law
Jennifer S. Hendricks, Professor of Law, University of Colorado Law School
Tanya Hernandez, Professor of Law, Fordham Law School
Kathy Hessler, Professor of Law, Lewis & Clark Law School 
Zachary Herz, Assistant Teaching Professor, Georgetown University 
Jeffrey Hirsch, Professor of Law, University of North Carolina 
Ann C. Hodges, Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Richmond 
Clare Huntington, Joseph M. McLaughlin Professor of Law, Fordham Law School 
Alan Hyde, Professor of Law, Rutgers University 
Lisa C. Ikemoto, Professor of Law, University of California, Davis School of Law
Lolita Buckner Inniss, Professor and Robert G. Storey Distinguished Faculty Fellow, SMU Dedman School of Law
Melanie B. Jacobs, Senior Associate Dean and Professor of Law, Michigan State University College of Law
Dawn Johnsen, Walter W. Foskett Professor of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law 
Margaret E. Johnson, Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law
Ann Juliano, Professor of Law, Villanova University 
Marcy Karin, Jack and Lovell Olender Professor of Law, UDC David A. Clarke School of Law 
Eileen Kaufman, Professor of Law, Touro Law School 
Deseriee Kennedy, Associate Dean of Diversity & Inclusion and Professor of Law, Touro Law Center
Laura Kessler, Professor of Law, University of Utah
Kathleen Kim, Professor of Law, Loyola Law School Los Angeles 
Kit Kinports, Distinguished Faculty Scholar, Penn State Law 
Laurie Kohn, Associate Professor of Law, George Washington Law School 
Judith Koons, Professor of Law, Barry University School of Law 
Jane Korn, Professor of Law, Gonzaga Law School 
Minna J. Kotkin, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School 
Candy Kovacic-Fleischer, Professor of Law Emeritus, American University 
Zachary Kramer, Professor of Law, Arizona State 
Douglas Kysar, Joseph M. Field ’55 Professor of Law, Yale Law School 
Rebecca K. Lee, Associate Professor of Law, Thomas Jefferson School of Law 
Sophia Lee, Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania 
Nancy Leong, Professor of Law, University of Denver Sturm College of Law 
Nancy Levit, Professor of Law, University of Missouri, Kansas City
Mary A. Lynch, Kate Stoneman Chair in Law and Democracy, Albany Law School
Orly Lobel, Professor, University of San Diego School of Law 
Antoinette Sedillo López, Professor Emerita, University of New Mexico School of Law 
Jean Love, Professor of Law, Santa Clara University
Lois R. Lupica, Maine Law Foundation Professor of Law, University of Maine School of Law 
Ellen Marcus, Royce Till Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center
Maya Manian, Professor of Law, University of San Francisco School of Law 
Serena Mayeri, Professor of Law and History, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Elizabeth McCormick, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, University of Tulsa College of Law
Marcia McCormick, Professor, Saint Louis University School of Law 
Ann McGinley, William S. Boyd Professor of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Law School
Miranda Oshige McGowan, Professor of Law, University of San Diego Law School
M. Isabel Medina, Ferris Family Distinguished Professor of Law, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law 
Kathryn Mercer, Professor, Case Western Reserve University School of Law 
Vanessa Merton, Professor of Law, Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University
Margaret Montoya, Professor Emerita of Law, University of New Mexico 
Seema Mohapatra, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law
Jennifer Moore, Professor of Law, University of New Mexico School of Law 
Melissa Murray, Professor of Law, New York University 
Yxta Maya Murray, Professor of Law, Loyola Law School
Smita Narula, Haub Distinguished Professor of International Law, Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University
Carol A. Needham, Emanuel Myers Professor of Law, Saint Louis University
Victoria F. Nourse, Professor of Law, Georgetown Law School 
Michael A. Olivas, William B. Bates Distinguished Chair, University of Houston Law Center 
Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Dean and Professor of Law at Boston University School of Law 
David Oppenheimer, Professor of Law, University of California Berkeley Law School
Laura Oren, Professor Emerita, University of Houston Law Center 
Richard Ottinger, Dean Emeritus, Elizabeth Haub School of Law of Pace University
Jessica Owley, Professor of Law, SUNY Buffalo Law School
Laura Padilla, Professor of Law, California Western School of Law
Cathren Page, Associate Professor of Law, Barry University School of Law
Joyce Palomar, Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Oklahoma College of Law 
Sachin Pandya, Professor of Law, University of Connecticut Law School
Wendy Parmet, Professor of Law, Northeastern University
Danielle Pelfrey Duryea, Clinical Visiting Assistant Professor, Assistant Dean, University at Buffalo, SUNY
Andrea L. Peterson, Professor of Law Emerita, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
Catherine Powell, Professor of Law, Fordham Law School 
Nicole Buonocore Porter, Professor of Law, University of Toledo College of Law
Jeanne Frazier Price, Professor of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Lisa Pruitt, Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law 
Vernellia Randall, Professor Emerita of Law, The University of Dayton School of Law
Srividhya Ragavan, Professor of Law, Texas A&M School of Law
Gowri Ramachandran, Professor of Law, Southwestern Law School 
Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Proessor of Law, Temple Law School
Renee C. Redman, Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Connecticut School of Law
Meredith Render, Professor of Law, Hugh F. Culverhouse Jr. School of Law at the University of Alabama 
Judith Resnik, Arthur Liman Professor of Law, Yale Law School 
Deborah L. Rhode, Professor of Law, Stanford Law School 
Camille Gear Rich, Professor of Law and Sociology, USC Gould School of Law
Stephen Rich. Professor of Law, University of Southern California Law School 
Michelle Richards, Assistant Professor of Law, Detroit Mercy Law 
Sarah E. Ricks, Distinguished Clinical Professor of Law, Rutgers Law School
Florence Wagman Roisman, William F. Harvey Professor of Law and Chancellor’s Professor, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law
Adam Romero, Professor of Law, University of California Los Angeles
Carrie Rosenbaum, Adjunct Professor, Golden Gate University School of Law
Laura Rovner, Professor of Law, University of Denver College of Law
Susan Deller Ross, Professor, Georgetown University 
Merrick Rossein, Professor of Law, City University of New York School of Law
Brandi Katz Rubin, Adjunct Professor of Law, Cardozo School of Law
Margaret Russell, Professor of Law, Santa Clara University 
Leticia Saucedo, Professor of Law, U. C. Davis School of Law 
Wayne Sandholtz, Professor of International Relations and Law, University of Southern California
Margaret Satterthwaite, Professor of Clinical Law, New York University School of Law
Nadia N. Sawicki, Georgia Reithal Professor of Law; Academic Director, Beazley Institute for Health Law & Policy, Loyola University Chicago School of Law
Naomi Schoenbaum, Associate Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School 
Vicki Schultz, Ford Foundation Professor of Law and Social Science, Yale Law School
Paul Secunda, Professor of Law, Marquette University
Dveera Segal, Professor of Law Emeritus, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law
Rachel Settlage, Associate Professor, Wayne State Law School
Ann Shalleck, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law 
Elaine Shoben, Professor of Law, University of Nevada Las Vegas 
Abbe Smith, Professor of Law, Georgetown University
Charisa Kiyô Smith, Associate Professor of Law, City University of New York School of Law 
Peggie Smith, Charles Nagel Professor of Employment & Labor Law, Washington University in St. Louis School of Law 
Gemma Solimene, Clinical Associate Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law
Jane Spinak, Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
Brian Soucek, Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law 
Kathryn Stanchi, Jack E. Feinberg Professor of Litigation & Professor of Law, Temple University School of Law
Charles Sullivan, Professor of Law, Seton Hall University 
Allison Tait, Associate Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law
Ann Thomas, Otto L. Walter Distinguished Professor of Tax Law, New York Law School 
Michelle Travis, Professor of Law, University of San Francisco School of Law
Jane Spinak, Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
Deborah Tuerkheimer, Research Professor, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law 
Valorie Kay Vojdik, Professor of Law, University of Tennessee
Leti Volpp, Robert D. and Leslie Kay Raven Professor of Law, UC Berkley School of Law
Rachel Vorspan, Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law
Lu-in Wang, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh 
Ettie Ward, Professor of Law, St. John’s University School of Law 
Rhonda Wasserman, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law 
Gary Watson, Provost Professor of Philosophy and Law, University of Southern California
Danielle Weatherby, Associate Professor of Law, University of Arkansas School of Law
Jessica Dixon Weaver, Associate Professor of Law, SMU Dedman School of Law
Kelly Weisberg, Professor of Law, University of California Hastings College of Law
Marley Weiss, Professor of Law, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
Deborah M. Weissman, Reef C. Ivey II Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law 
Robin West, Professor of Law, Georgetown University
Barbara Ann White, Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law 
Deborah Widiss, Professor of Law, IU Bloomington
Stephanie Wildman, Professor Emerita, Santa Clara University of School of Law 
Pam Wilkins, Professor of Law, University of Detroit Mercy School of Law
Stephen Wizner, William O. Douglas Clinical Professor of Law Emeritus, Yale Law School
David Yamada, Professor of Law, Suffolk University 
Deborah Zalesne, Professor of Law, CUNY School of Law 
Noah Zatz, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law 
Candace M. Zierdt, Professor of Law, Stetson University College of Law