Archive for December, 2017

December 22, 2017

Wade Presents at Michigan, Wharton, Loyola-Chicago, and the New York City Symposium on the State of Diversity and Inclusion

Earlier this year Professor Cheryl L. Wade participated on the plenary panel of the Lutie Lytle Black Women Law Faculty Conference at the University of Michigan. The panel entitled “The New Legal and Political Landscape – Academia and Social Justice” opened the conference.


Cheryl Wade

Also earlier in the year, Professor Wade co-taught a session on “Enhancing Professional Conduct in the Financial Services Industry” sponsored by FINRA’s Institute for Executive Education at The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.

In October, Professor Wade presented a paper on shareholder activists’ impact on corporate diversity efforts at a symposium on Corporate Ethics and Compliance in the Era of Re-Deregulation sponsored by The Institute for Law and Economic Policy and Loyola University Chicago School of Law’s Institute for Investor Protection.

In November, Professor Wade presented her article entitled Corporate Lawyers and Diversity Discourse, published in the Journal of The Institute for Inclusion in the Legal Profession at the New York City Symposium on the State of Diversity and Inclusion. The Symposium takes place annually and gathers diversity and inclusion professionals from corporations across the nation. The 2017 symposium at which Professor Wade presented was sponsored by and took place at the offices of Morgan Stanley.

Also in November, Professor Wade collaborated with a group of economists, bankers, commercial law judges, lawyers and actors on a project about financial sector regulation. After participating in a year-long effort to create a production that presented, explained, and explored pertinent issues in the aftermath of the 2009 economic downturn by using the arts, Professor Wade travelled with the group and participated in the performance and presentation of their collaboration. The project was funded by a grant received by the Peter Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia and included participants from UBC and Oxford University. Professor Wade participated in presentations at Oxford University, The Inns of Court in London, The University of British Columbia, and at The Symphony Space Theater in New York City.

Professor Wade will participate on a panel on The Personification of the Corporation at the 2018 American Association of Law Schools’ Annual Conference in January.

December 6, 2017

Krishnakumar’s Book Review to be Published in Yale Law Journal

Professor Anita S. Krishnakumar has written a review of Josh Chafetz’s new book, Congress’s Constitution:  Legislative Authority and the Separation of Powers (Yale University Press, 2017).  cropped-webpage-i

The review, titled “How Long is History’s Shadow?”, will be published in the Yale Law Journal.  Here is the abstract:

In Congress’s Constitution, Professor Josh Chafetz takes issue with those who have questioned the value of Congress in recent years, arguing that such critics focus too heavily on Congress’s legislative function and ignore several important nonlegislative powers that enable Congress to exert significant authority vis-à-vis the other branches. Chafetz engages in close historical examination of these nonlegislative powers and notes that in some cases Congress has ceased exercising them as robustly as it once did, while in others it has unwittingly ceded its powers to another branch. Congress’s Constitution urges Congress to reassert several of its ceded powers more aggressively going forward, in order to recapture some of the authority and influence it has lost over time.

While admiring Chafetz’s project—and sharing in his nostalgia for some of Congress’s lost powers—this Review questions Congress’s ability and inclination to rehabilitate its underused powers in the manner Chafetz advocates. At least some of the powers Chafetz seeks to revive read like ancient history—the record of an era of legislative governance that has long since passed and that subsequent political and legal events have transformed—perhaps irreversibly. Further, Chafetz may be underestimating how some important dynamics, such as partisanship, could make Congress itself less likely to want to exercise its powers and could make the public unlikely to accept modern congressional attempts to aggressively exercise powers that have lain dormant for decades. More fundamentally, the present-day Congress may not have the integrity as an institution to look past what it “wants in the moment” in order to take steps that will benefit it as an institution—and it may not care as much about preserving its own traditions and history as Chafetz does.

In the end, the Review suggests that while reinvigorating Congress’s underappreciated powers may be a good idea in theory, in practice it may prove more challenging than Chafetz recognizes.

December 5, 2017

Levine Presents at Wake Forest and University of Washington Law Schools

Professor Kate Levine was invited to present her work-in-progress, Discipline and Policing, at two faculty workshops this Fall.  levine

On October 5, 2017, she presented to the Wake Forest University Law School faculty, and on November 9, 2017, she presented to the University of Washington School of Law faculty. The paper has also been selected for the American Constitution Society’s, Junior Scholars Public Law Workshop, held at the AALS 2018 meeting in San Diego, CA, on January 4, 2018.

Discipline and Policing examines police disciplinary records (PDRs). These records are part of an officer’s personnel file and contain reported wrongdoing from sources such as supervisors, Internal Affairs Bureau investigations, and Community Complaint Review Boards. Professor Levine’s article argues that a current movement, led mostly by civil rights groups, to make PDRs public is problematic on a number of levels. The paper first shows how prevalent the notion of transparency has become in police reform scholarship and policymaking. It questions the efficacy and long-term benefits of the “transparency cure” for policing problems generally, and then does so specifically for PDRs. Advocates of PDR transparency hope that making records public will ramp up discipline of bad officers, reform police departments, and make communities safer. The paper argues that these hopes are in vain, and that, in fact, there is a real concern that police departments will retrench if forced to make discipline more public. The paper then shows how similar arguments in favor of making PDR’s public are to arguments deployed successfully by those who wished to make criminal records public — a reality that has been lamented and critiqued by scholars for decades. Finally, the paper shows that many of the problems inherent in making criminal record public: inaccuracy, arbitrariness, overdermination, and racial injustice, are just as problematic for PDRs, which emerge from a system comparable in its confusion and byzantine nature to the criminal justice system. Thus, the arguments scholars have made for decades about criminal record publication should be considered when it comes to PDR publication. And, the language which police groups use to defend their rights can and should be leveraged to argue for a tamping down of harshness toward criminal defendants. This paper builds on a series of articles arguing that the trend toward harshness for police who are accused of wrongdoing legitimates the harshness with which criminal defendants are treated.

%d bloggers like this: