By Danielle Arbogast
On November 12, 2014, more than three hundred and forty guests gathered at the NYU Law Alumni Association’s Annual Fall Conference, cohosted by the NYU Review of Law & Social Change, to consider a pressing problem in the United States legal system: wrongful convictions. Law Alumni Association President Carren Shulman ’91, Dean Trevor Morrison, and Review of Law & Social Change Symposium Editor, Olivia Scheck ’15, introduced the distinguished panel of speakers: moderator Rachel E. Barkow, Jennifer E. Laurin, Ken Thompson ’92, Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., Barry C. Scheck, and Peter J. Neufeld ’75.
Coming soon: The Harbinger, an online publication from Social Change!
We are excited to announce that this spring, Social Change will launch an online-only, short form publication. The Harbinger will publish innovative content and legal scholarship that incorporate critical new perspectives and diverse voices. The Harbinger will reflect the core values of Social Change and complement our traditional publication by providing a flexible, responsive and dynamic platform.
Our emphasis is on work that is timely, approachable, and varied in format. Diversity in form is
intended to facilitate diversity in author perspective and in readership. Our condensed publication schedule and online presence allows authors engage in unfolding debates about the law and social issues. Practitioners, policymakers, students, and others are encouraged to take advantage of our emphasis on short-form pieces and range of content. Please see our submission policy for additional information.
We are currently soliciting pieces for publication and encourage submissions by December 20th for consideration for March publication. Mark your calendars for the evening of March 11th for our launch party and please feel free to contact the Digital Executive Editors with any questions.
Earlier this month, the California State Legislature asked upcoming RLSC author Mary Ann Mason, Ph.D., to testify on Assembly Bill No. 2350, an Assembly amendment requiring all institutions of higher education—public colleges and universities—to comply with the Title IX prohibitions on pregnancy discrimination. After considering, among other things, Dr. Mason’s research on women in STEM career paths, as well as an advance copy of her article, Title IX and Pregnancy Discrimination: The New Frontier (co-written with Jaclyn Younger, forthcoming in issue 38.2), the legislature passed the amendment unanimously.
This amendment provides for significant new protections, including a requirement that postsecondary educational institutions to allow graduate students, if they so choose, to take leaves of absence of at least 2 academic terms because they are pregnant or have recently given birth, unless there is a medical reason for a longer absence. The amendment also requires that these students be given at least 12 additional months to prepare for and take preliminary and qualifying examinations and an extension of at least 12 months toward normative time to degree while they are in candidacy for a graduate degree, unless a longer extension is medically necessary.
Check back soon to read this exciting article!
Image Credit: James Sarmiento via Flickr
By Tony Varona[*] Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Faculty and Academic Affairs at the American University Washington College of Law
U.S. News and World Report recently released its law school rankings and, as happens every year, readers have focused almost exclusively on the many extreme fluctuations in ranks. Why did Schools A, B and C suddenly jump 20 spots? Did the learning experience at Schools X, Y and Z really erode so dramatically as to justify their 25-spot freefall? What will this big drop (or climb) mean for student and faculty recruitment, and alumni employment rates, at these schools? Instead, or in addition, we should be asking more probing questions, like: Does the U.S. News measuring stick itself measure up? Is it measuring the right things? And what effects have the U.S. News rankings had on legal education and society itself? If we were to carry a miner’s canary into the depths of the U.S. News ranking methodology, we quickly would have a dead bird on our hands. Why?