|
Program
Sunday January 6 7:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. 7:30 - 8:30 a.m. AALS Events 7:30 - 9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Moderator: Louis F. Del Duca, The Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of Law This program is a sequel to the meeting of the newly created International Association of Law Schools which addressed a similar topic at its meeting on October 17-19, 2007 at the Kenneth Wang School of Law at the Soochow University in Suzhou, China. Several participants in the China program will present an overview and update of their meeting. Their presentations are intended to generate discussions to facilitate development of programs and procedures which will enrich the opportunity of law students around the world to acquire skills needed for effective lawyering in our increasingly interrelated world. Each presenter in our symposium will be asked (as they were in the China program) to describe basic similarities and differences of major legal cultures and systems and which of the features representative of their system they would like to have addressed in law school classes in foreign countries. They also will be asked to identify programs and procedures they would recommend for presenting these similarities and differences effectively in foreign law school classes. Use of the new technology in instantaneous audio visual and computer based electronic communication to assist in achieving these goals will also be addressed. This program will provide a base from which future areas of cooperation and programs addressed to specific areas of the law can be developed. 9:00 - 10:45 a.m. Moderator: Kurt T. Lash, Loyola Law School One recurring criticism of originalism as a method of constitutional interpretation is a claimed lack of a persuasive normative basis for the approach. A second criticism is pragmatic: Originalism can neither escape nor accomplish the impossible task of aggregating countless individual “intentions” by those who framed and ratified the constitutional text. In response to such criticisms, originalism has evolved as an interpretive theory to the point where the most sophisticated version of originalist theory differs substantially from the classic formulation of “originalism as judicial restraint.” Instead of seeking original intent, the new originalism seeks the original public meaning of constitutional text. As a matter of normative theory, instead of judicial restraint, originalists today are more likely to ground the approach on the normative theory of popular sovereignty. The ever-changing nature of originalism, however, has led to accusations that the theory is engaged in continual retreat in the face of unending criticism. Today’s panel includes both defenders and critics of the New Originalism who will discuss whether the shifting nature of originalism marks the strength of an evolving theory or the weakness of an ultimately indefensible method of constitutional interpretation. 9:00 - 10:45 a.m. Moderator: Anthony M. Dillof, Wayne State University Law School The panel will inquire into the full range of questions presented by the the most complex kind of homicide. What is the state of the law on manslaughter in the U.S., Canada, and Australia? In theoretical terms, is voluntary manslaughter a crime of weakness-of-will rather a crime of partially right conduct or partially forgivable character defect? Does the reasonable person test for provocation obfuscate the issue whether there were appropriate reasons for the defendant’s anger? Is the proper focus in the reasonable person test for provocation on the reasonableness of the underlying beliefs or on self-control. And finally, is there a distinctive feminist perspective on manslaughter? 9:00 -12:00 p.m. Moderators: Arthur Acevedo, The John Marshall Law School— Chicago Toward a Labor Liberalization Solution to the Modern Traffic in Humans Criminal Prosecution in U.S. Courts of High-Level U.S. Civilian Authority and Military Generals for Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment Who is a Refugee? Child Soldiers, Slavery, and the Trafficking of Children Corporal Punishment of Children Global Sex Trafficking Cognitive Science and the Foundations of Human Rights The Relationship of Religion and Human Rights in International Law Theory Making Selves: Human Rights and Rule of Law Cultures Ignorance and Want: A Human Rights Conflict Analysis Regarding Competing Interests in Health Care, Food, and Education Reconciling Restorative and Retributive Justice Norms in International Criminal Law: Victims and the Right to Participate in International Proceedings Mass Claim Type Procedures (MCTPs) in International Law and Practice Judging the Truth: A Comparison of Credibility Determinations for Asylum Claims in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and the European Union 9:00 - 10:45 a.m. Speakers: Oren Bracha, The University of Texas School of Law 9:00 - 10:45 a.m. (Program to be published in Virginia Sports and Entertainment Law Journal) Deborah L. Brake, University of Pittsburgh School of Law For many Americans, the world of sports occupies a unique place in American society. To much of the public, the arena of sports is viewed as model for meritocracy and integration. It is a space, at least in certain sports, in which racial minorities are well represented among the ranks of professional athletes, whether it is Latinos in Major League Baseball or the Blacks in the National Basketball Association. It is the place where players of all races work together on teams to achieve the goal of winning a game, a title, or a championship. It is a race that many children of color truly believe that they can win if they try hard enough. Sports fans can hardly turn on the television or radio without hearing the tale of another person of color who has crossed the color line in athletics. Whether it is Tiger Woods in golf, Venus Williams in tennis, or Juan Pablo Montoya in NASCAR, minority athletes represent, in the eyes of many Americans, the achievement of the American dream and a vision of “true” meritocracy. The last few years in sports have begun to rock that commonly-held public perception of sports’ unique position in the American landscape. For example, although highlighted as a great, ground-breaking first for Blacks, the first Super Bowl match-up of teams led by black head coaches in February of 2007 exposed a gloomier side of sports to the American public. The historic match-up uncovered a world of coaching in sports that was not nearly as integrated as league teams. For example, it revealed the increasing but low numbers of minority head coaches in the NFL (numbers that have increased primarily because of the implementation of the minority interviewing rule in 2003). The match-up also made public the inequities among both players and staff across professional sports leagues. For example, it exposed the fact that Chicago Bears Coach Lovie Smith, one of the black coaches in the historic match-up, was the lowest paid coach in the entire NFL. It also raised questions again about the dearth of minorities within the ranks of owners and managers. In sum, it demonstrated sports’ truly unique position in American society—as both a narrative for successful integration among its players and a narrative for intense segregation at its levels of coaching, management, and ownership. This Panel will further explore the intersection of race and sport as it relates to issues of equality and anti-subordination. Professors Deborah Brake and Verna Williams will examine, in a joint talk and paper, how race has played out in the critique of Title IX and Title IX’s failure to engage issues of racial justice in sports. Professor Jacquelyn Bridgeman will use sports as a metaphor for life to view the larger problems of discrimination and subordination in American society. Specifically, she will argue that the United States has accomplished more in eradicating discrimination and subordination in the area of sports than in others areas of American society, will explore the reason for such a development in sports, and will investigate whether that success can be duplicated elsewhere. Professors Adrienne Davis and Rebecca Wanzo, in their joint talk, will examine disaggregation in issues involving sports, race, and law by exploring the appropriate/inappropriate collapse of various issues (rape law, privacy, sports culture, students’ rights, community/university relations, class, and race) and the extent to which it is politically and/or legally productive to disaggregate or correlate arguments. Professor Timothy Davis will delve deeply into broader issues of race and sport by providing an overview of how the debate regarding race and sport has evolved over time. Professor Jeremi Duru, former counsel for the Fritz Pollard Alliance, will examine the movement to ensure equal opportunity hiring for head coaching positions for NFL Teams and its place in a broader effort to battle employment discrimination in corporate America. In so doing, Professor Duru will analyze last year’s momentous Super Bowl as a consequence of that movement and will discuss what the Super Bowl match-up signifies for the future of race and sport. Professor Michael McCann will focus on lessons to be learned from social psychology about the intersection between race and age limits in professional sports. Specifically, he will examine what social psychology tells us about the NFL and the NBA being the only major sports organizations that prohibit players from entrance until a prescribed period after high school graduation. He will further examine whether fan and media perception of African-American male athletes is, at least in part, explanatory. 9:00-12:00 p.m. Moderators: Elizabeth A. Pendo, St. Thomas University School of Law SPEAKERS SELECTED FROM CALL FOR PAPERS: Globalization, Human Rights, and the Erosion of State Sovereignty The Cost of Conflation: On the Dualism of Jus Ad Bellum and Jus in Bello Colonial Constitutionalism Versus Self-Determination: Washington, You Have a Problem! The Façade of Neutrality: Implications of International Trade Politics on Women’s Rights Toward a Predictive Theory of Executive Forum Discretion in Counterterrorism The Mandatory Death Penalty in the Commonwealth Caribbean: A Chronicle of Death Foretold? Thoughts Toward Protection of a Right to International Travel The Democracy to Which We Are Entitled: Human Rights and the Problem of Money in Politics U.N. Millennium Development Goals and State Capacity: Shifting the Focus of Donor Programs to the Public Interest United Nations Resolutions Relative to Efforts Aimed at Combating International Terrorism: An Emerging Norm of Customary International Law and Jus Cogens” This is an Emergency: Re-seeing the Jus ad Bellum through a Human Rights Lens 9:00 - 10:45 a.m. Moderator: Darryll Keith Jones, University of Pittsburgh School of Law In this roundtable, pioneering and leading scholars of nonprofit and philanthropy law will discuss this field’s development as a discrete discipline, assess the current state of scholarship in this field, and consider fruitful areas for future research. Panelists will discuss aspects of nonprofit and philanthropy law from the perspective of general notions of corporate law, tax law and trust law. 9:00 - 10:45 a.m. Moderator: L. Kinvin Wroth, Vermont Law School One or more presenters were selected from a call for papers. What are the trends in North American cross-border practice sparked by NAFTA and the opportunities for graduates of Canadian and Mexican law schools to take the bar examination in New York and other states? Should states relax the number of years of U.S. legal education required for such applicants? What is the disciplinary history of these lawyers in New York? What is the status of current initiatives among Canadian, Mexican, and U.S. law schools to develop joint programs or other cooperative ventures, and what is the potential impact of such programs on multinational practice in North America? Are there professional and academic impediments to such cooperation? Professor Laurel S. Terry, Penn State-Dickinson, will lead off the program with a general summary of current international, U.S., and regional trends in cross-border practice, including recent Australian initiatives and the implications of the Bologna Process for U.S. legal education. Professor Carol Needham of St. Louis will add observations about bar admission and other processional issues, and Lic. Gabriel Salinas, a Harvard LL.M. candidate who has practiced in the U.S. and Mexico, will give the perspective of the new generation of lawyers. Deans Ian Holloway of Western Ontario and Bruce Elman of Windsor and Professors John Reifenberg of Michigan State and Kinvin Wroth of Vermont will describe international degree programs at their institutions and needs and opportunities presented by the changing cross-border practice scene. 9:00 - 10:45 a.m. Commentators: Eric R. Claeys, George Mason University School of Law 9:00 - 10:45 a.m. Moderator: Rachel E. Croskery-Roberts, The University of Michigan Law School This panel shall address issues facing women in the legal academy which has been mostly ignored through the decades. The topics include: the history of women law professors; status and compensation issues for women law professors in general and additional barriers facing female clinicians; and hegemonic forms of masculinity and gendering roles within the legal academy. Other Organization Events 7:00 - 8:30 a.m. |
 |
