Law Commons^™

The Changing Legal Climate For Physician Aid In Dying, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Testing, Diversity, And Merit: A Reply To Dan Subotnik And Others, Andrea A. Curcio, Carol L. Chomsky, Eileen Kaufman

Scholarly Works

The false dichotomy between achieving diversity and rewarding merit frequently surfaces in discussions about decisions on university and law school admissions, scholarships, law licenses, jobs, and promotions. “Merit” judgments are often based on the results of standardized tests meant to predict who has the best chance to succeed if given the opportunity to do so. This Article criticizes over-reliance on standardized tests and responds to suggestions that challenging the use of such tests reflects a race-comes-first approach that chooses diversity over merit. Discussing the firefighter exam that led to the Supreme Court decision in Ricci v. DiStefano, as well as …

The Ninth Circuit’S Treatment Of Sexual Orientation: Defining “Rational Basis Review With Bite”, Ian C. Bartrum

Scholarly Works

When the Ninth Circuit handed down Witt v. Department of the Air Force, President Obama and then-Solicitor General Kagan declined to take an appeal to the Supreme Court. At the time, it seemed that most advocates of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” believed that the administration made that decision because it was afraid the Supreme Court would reverse the Ninth Circuit. If that fear was perhaps well-founded in 2009, it is certainly less so now. In the wake of SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, as well as recent District Court decisions, opponents of federal constitutional protection for gay people …

Contesting A Contestation Of Testing: A Reply To Richard Delgado, Dan Subotnik

Scholarly Works

This article was written as part of an ongoing dialog about the author’s previous article, Does Testing = Race Discrimination?: Ricci, The Bar Exam, the LSAT, and the Challenge to Learning, which defended the Supreme Court’s decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, as well as defending testing more generally against charges of irrelevance, racial obtuseness, and most seriously, race discrimination.

This article specifically responds to Richard Delgado’s article, Standardized Testing as Discrimination: A Reply to Dan Subotnik.

Race Indeed Above All: A Reply To Professors Andrea Curcio, Carol Chomsky, And Eileen Kaufman, Dan Subotnik

Scholarly Works

This article was written as part of an ongoing dialog about the author’s previous article, Does Testing = Race Discrimination?: Ricci, The Bar Exam, the LSAT, and the Challenge to Learning, which defended the Supreme Court’s decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, as well as defending testing more generally against charges of irrelevance, racial obtuseness, and most seriously, race discrimination.

This article specifically responds to Andrea A. Curcio, Carol L. Chomsky, and Eileen Kaufman’s article, Testing, Diversity, and Merit: A Reply to Dan Subotnik and Others.

Testing, Discrimination, And Opportunity: A Reply To Professor Harvey Gilmore, Dan Subotnik

Scholarly Works

This article was written as part of an ongoing dialog about the author’s previous article, "Does Testing = Race Discrimination?: Ricci, The Bar Exam, the LSAT, and the Challenge to Learning," which defended the Supreme Court’s decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, as well as defending testing more generally against charges of irrelevance, racial obtuseness, and most seriously, race discrimination.

This article specifically responds to an article written by Professor Harvey Gilmore which focuses mostly on the SAT and the LSAT.

Civil Rights In Crisis: The Racial Impact Of The Denial Of The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel, Richard Klein

Scholarly Works

Whereas in 2013 there had been widespread celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, much has been written in subsequent years about the unhappy state of the quality of counsel provided to indigents. But it is not just defense counsel who fail to comply with all that we hope and expect would be done by those who are part of our criminal courts; prosecutorial misconduct, if not actually increasing, is becoming more visible. The judiciary chooses to focus on the rapid processing of cases, often ignoring the rights of those being prosecuted …