Call For Papers: Applied Feminism and Work

The University of Baltimore School of Law’s Center on Applied Feminism seeks submissions for its Eighth Annual Feminist Legal Theory Conference.  This year’s theme is “Applied Feminism and Work.”  The conference will be held on March 5 and 6, 2015. For more information about the conference, please visit law.ubalt.edu/caf.

As the nation emerges from the recession, work and economic security are front and center in our national policy debates. Women earn less than men, and the new economic landscape impacts men and women differently. At the same time, women are questioning whether to Lean In or Lean Out, and what it means to “have it all.” The conference will build on these discussions. As always, the Center’s conference will serve as a forum for scholars, practitioners and activists to share ideas about applied feminism, focusing on the intersection of theory and practice to effectuate social change. The conference seeks papers that discuss this year’s theme through the lens of an intersectional approach to feminist legal theory, addressing not only the premise of seeking justice for all people on behalf of their gender but also the interlinked systems of oppression based on race, sexual orientation, gender identity, class, immigration status, disability, and geographical and historical context.

Papers might explore the following questions: What impact has feminist legal theory had on the workplace? How does work impact gender and vice versa? How might feminist legal theory respond to issues such as stalled immigration reform, economic inequality, pregnancy accommodation, the low-wage workforce, women’s access to economic opportunities, family-friendly work environments, paid sick and family leave, decline in unionization, and low minimum wage rates? What sort of support should society and law provide to ensure equal employment opportunities that provide for security for all? How do law and feminist legal theory conceptualize the role of the state and the private sector in relation to work? Are there rights to employment and what are their foundations? How will the recent Supreme Court Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Harris v. Quinn decisions impact economic opportunities for women? How will the new EEOC guidance on pregnancy accommodation and the Young v. UPS upcoming Supreme Court decision affect rights of female workers?

The conference will provide an opportunity for participants and audience members to exchange ideas about the current state of feminist legal theories. We hope to deepen our understandings of how feminist legal theory relates to work and to move new insights into practice. In addition, the conference is designed to provide presenters with the opportunity to gain feedback on their papers.

The conference will begin the afternoon of Thursday, March 5, 2015, with a workshop.   This workshop will continue the annual tradition of involving all attendees as participants in an interactive discussion and reflection.  On Friday, March 6, 2015, the conference will continue with a day of presentations regarding current scholarship and/or legal work that explores the application of feminist legal theory to issues involving health.  The conference will be open to the public and will feature a keynote speaker. Past keynote speakers have included Nobel Laureate Toni Morrison, Dr. Maya Angelou, Gloria Steinem, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Sheryl WuDunn, Senators Barbara Mikulski and Amy Klobuchar, and NOW President Terry O’Neill.

To submit a paper proposal, please submit an abstract by Friday, 5 p.m. on October 31, 2014, to ubfeministconference@gmail.com. It is essential that your abstract contain your full contact information, including an email, phone number, and mailing address where you can be reached. In the “Re” line, please state: CAF Conference 2015. Abstracts should be no longer than one page.  We will notify presenters of selected papers in mid-November.  We anticipate being able to have twelve paper presenters during the conference on Friday, March 6, 2015. About half the presenter slots will be reserved for authors who commit to publishing in the symposium volume of the University of Baltimore Law Review.  Thus, please indicate at the bottom of your abstract whether you are submitting (1) solely to present or (2) to present and publish in the symposium volume.  Authors who are interested in publishing in the Law Review will be strongly considered for publication.  Regardless of whether or not you are publishing in the symposium volume, all working drafts of symposium-length or article-length papers will be due no later than February 13, 2015.  Abstracts will be posted on the Center on Applied Feminism’s conference website to be shared with other participants and attendees.   Presenters are responsible for their own travel costs; the conference will provide a discounted hotel rate, as well as meals.

We look forward to your submissions. If you have further questions, please contact Prof. Margaret Johnson at majohnson@ubalt.edu.

Posted in Announcements, Symposium | Tagged

Article: Sitting By The Well: The Case For Intercultural Competency Training In International Experiential Learning

By Jeffrey Blumberg

“Sit by the well.” This was the guiding principle by which a friend and fellow returned Peace Corps volunteer, who served in Africa in the 1960s, conducted her volunteer service. She explained that volunteers were instructed to listen, learn, adapt and integrate culturally, and understand their cultural settings. Volunteers were given permission to not immediately “accomplish” but first understand the context of their volunteer assignments and the nuances of local players’ inter-relationships, cultural norms, and community needs. It was only after having this period of reflection that volunteers would be considered ready to roll up their sleeves and go about undertaking their assignments. This concept of sitting by the well is tantamount to obtaining intercultural competency before setting out to conduct community development work.

This paper will address a pressing issue: how do we re-create this time of sitting by the well before sending law students out on their international experiential learning journey? How do we teach them to continue to “sit by the well” once they begin their work assignments? And, in the end, how do we ensure that they will be prepared to be effective international advocates who contribute to the cause of social justice during their international experiential learning?

The globalization of the practice of law is growing exponentially and law students are clamoring for international work experience. Law schools have responded by increasing the opportunities for international experiential learning. These expanded opportunities include a number of options that range from single country placements for multiple students, often with in-country faculty, to multi-country models that send many students to different countries with primary supervision by a local attorney or counterpart, along with a remote faculty.

The purpose of this article is to describe some of the lessons I have learned while teaching a multi-country international externship class at Washington College of Law. I will propose my model for intercultural competency training based on Peace Corps/development-based training ideas that I utilized during my seminar. In Part II, this article will briefly discuss the growing world of international experiential learning and the reason for this growth. Part III will discuss the differing models of international experiential learning with a focus on the distinction between the single country and multi-country models. Part IV will define intercultural competency training and analyze the use of intercultural competency training to prepare students for the Stanford Law School’s human rights fieldwork clinic in South Africa. In Part V, building on the work of the Stanford program and others, I will present my proposed framework for utilizing development-based intercultural competency training in a multiple country or local supervision model. Part VI will conclude with a discussion of how these culture general principles can be applied to other experiential learning models.

To read the full article by Jeffrey Blumberg, click here to download the PDF. The citation for the article is as follows:

Jeffrey Blumberg, Sitting By The Well: The Case For Intercultural Competency Training In International Experiential Learning, 43 U. Balt. L. Rev. 395 (2014).

Jeffrey Blumberg is an Adjunct Professor at Washington College of Law and a practitioner with over 20 years of legal experience. The author also served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Belize (2004-2006).

 

Posted in Current Issue, Issues, Volume 43 | Leave a comment

Volume 44 Masthead

Members of the University of Baltimore Law Review, Volume 44.

Law Review Executive Board, Volume 44
Editor-in-Chief: David Shafer
Managing Editor: Kaitlin Del Vecchio
Production Editors: Samantha Freed, Laura Gagne, Katharine Helfrich, Kyle Kushner
Articles Editor: Marie Long
Comments Editor: Ryan Horka
Executive Editor: Kaitlan Folderauer
Business Editor: Karen Smith
Symposium Editor: Jennifer Harris
Technology Editor: Stuart Smith

Law Review Associate Board, Volume 44
Associate Managing Editors: Tim Carey and Keith Ferrier
Associate Articles Editor: Adam Bosse
Associate Technology Editor: Morgan Gough
Associate Comment Editors: Alex Dobrusin, Niki Holmes, Caitlin McAteee, Philip Smith, and Bryce Ziskind

Law Review Staff Members, Volume 44
Abbey Ray, Erin Hanrahan, Jennifer Daly, John MacLellan, Myles Poster, Stephanie Maddox, Kathryn Huff, Maria Iliadis, Michael Leeb, Chelsae Endzel, Chris Merrill, Nate Titman, Samantha Ardinger, Taylor Beckham, Graham Bennie, Michael Berman, Katherine Bloom, Meredith Boram, Michael Brook, Paul Burgin, Alexander Castelli, Jacob Deaven, Ashley Ensor, Brittany Favazza, Nicholas Fearnow, Catherine Florea, Margaret Fogarty, Thomas Geddes, Sonya Grabowski, Emily Greene, Logan Haarz, Allen Honick, Alex Hughes, Harry Jones, Nida Kanwal, Nicole Kozlowski, Lauren Lake, Frank Lozupone, Rebekah Mears, Devon Miller, Christopher Monte, Philip Motsay, Alexander Powell, Alexandra Queener, Lawrence Rachuba, Kelly Raynaud, Edward Richardson, Brittany Strickland, Kris Vallecillo, Meaghan Vernick, Lisa Walker, Lauren Wood.

Faculty Adviser: Venable Professor of Law Robert Lande.

Aside | Posted on by | Leave a comment

Volume 43 Masthead

Members of the University of Baltimore Law Review for Volume 43.

Editor-in-Chief: John Baber
Managing Editor: Meredith Cipriano
Production Editors: Matt McCloskey, Alison Graham, Jordan Halle, Hannah Levin
Articles Editor: Virginia Callahan
Comments Editor: Benjamin Bor
Executive Editor: Jeffrey Toppe
Symposium Editor: Jeff Bernstein
Technology Editor: Jeff Amoros

Law Review Associate Board, Volume 43
Associate Managing Editors: Emily Alt and Maria Surdokas
Associate Articles Editor: Brent Clemmens
Associate Symposium Editor: Laura Hunt
Associate Technology Editors: Elisabeth Connell and T. Joseph McQueeney
Associate Comment Editors: Jessica Gorsky, Ryan Krute, Jessica Pilarski, James Sensor and Darryl Tarver

Law Review Staff Members, Volume 43
Dylan Bernstein, Adam Bosse, Megan Burnett, Brian Cannon, Timothy Carey, Joel Celso, Christopher Crosby, Jennifer Daly, Kaitlin Del Vecchio, Alex Dobrusin, Chelsae Endzel, Keith Ferrier, Kaitlan Folderauer, Gregory Fox, Samantha Freed, Katherine Furlong, Laura Gagne, Morgan Gough, Erin Hanrahan, Jennifer Harris, Katherine Helfrich, Katie Huff, Maria Ilidis, Kenneth Jones, Thomas Jones, April Kerns, Kyle Kushner, Michael Leeb, Marie Long, Caitlin McAtee, Chris Merrill, Niki Holmes, Ryan Horka, John MacLellan, Stephanie Maddox, Adam McCormick, Ethan Nochumowitz, Natalie Novak, Kaitlyn Pasco, Myles Poster, David Shafer, Karen Smith, Philip Smith, Stuart Smith, Lindsey Thomas, Nate Titman, Abbey Ray, Laura Ruppersberger, Ryan Walburn, Bryce Ziskind and Nati Zongo.

Faculty Adviser: Venable Professor of Law Robert Lande.

Aside | Posted on by | Leave a comment

What Can Comparative Legal Studies Learn from Feminist Legal Theories in the Era of Globalization

By Dr. Dana Raigrodski, Lecturer & Director, General L.L.M. track, from the University of Washington School of Law, Seattle, WA

Click here to download the full article.

Posted in Issues, Symposium | Leave a comment

7th Annual Feminist Legal Conference

Join the University of Baltimore Center on Applied Feminism and the Law Review at the 7th Annual Feminist Legal Conference on March 6-7th. For more information on the conference schedule click here for the full slate of panels and speakers.

Posted in Announcements | Leave a comment

Article: Determining the Preemptive Effect of Federal Law on State Statutes of Repose

By Adam Bain

Statutes of repose can prevent causes of actions from arising or being enforced after a given period of time has elapsed from a defined event. In recent years, courts applying the doctrine of federal preemption have increasingly found that federal statutes removed the barriers of state statutes of repose to certain tort suits. In doing so, however, courts have not followed a consistent interpretive approach to determine whether Congress meant to preempt statutes of repose through careful consideration of congressional intent and an understanding of the reasons that state legislatures enacted the repose provisions.

This article proposes an interpretative framework for determining questions of federal preemption of state statutes of repose that gives due consideration to both the preemptive power of the federal government through the Supremacy Clause as well as the prerogatives of the state legislature to define the limits of a state’s causes of action. First, the article considers the nature of statutes of repose, particularly how they have developed as substantive rather than procedural components of state law. Second, the article discusses the different doctrines of federal preemption – express preemption, field preemption, and conflict preemption – considering application of each doctrine to questions of federal preemption of state statutes of repose. Third, the article explores how principles of statutory interpretation determine the preemptive reach of a federal statute, focusing on text-based principles, interpretive canons of construction and legislative history.

With this background, the article proposes an interpretive approach which strikes an appropriate balance between federal and state power through determining the considered intent of Congress to preempt state statutes of repose or leave them standing. This approach first considers the plain meaning of the text of the statute and any applicable “text-based” canons of interpretation. If this inquiry does not resolve the question, a court should consider whether “substantive” canons of construction can give rise to any presumption regarding preemption. The article discusses how a court should determine whether any presumption regarding preemption should apply when multiple substantive canons provide different indications of meaning. The final step in the interpretive analysis is to determine whether any presumption regarding preemption is overcome by evidence from the statutory context, the legislative history, or the purposes of the federal statute.

Finally, the article applies the interpretive approach to two ongoing conflicts in federal law regarding whether a particular federal statute preempts state statutes of repose. The conflicts concern the interpretation of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which includes an express preemption provision and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which does not.

On January 10, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in a case that raises the issue of whether CERCLA preempts state statutes of repose. The case, Waldburger v. CTS Corporation, is discussed extensively in the article.

To read the full article by Adam Bain, click here to download the PDF. The citation for the article is as follows:

Adam Bain, Determining the Preemptive Effect of Federal Law on State Statutes of Repose, 43 U. Balt. L. Rev. 119 (2014).

Adam Bain has represented the United States in environmental tort cases in federal district and appellate courts for over twenty-five years.  He has written extensively on federal statutory, evidentiary and discovery issues, and he frequently speaks on these issues at seminars and conferences.  His prior law review articles on statutes of limitations have often been cited by academics, litigators and courts. 

Posted in Issues | Leave a comment