Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Trapped By A Paradox: Speculations On Why Female Law Professors Find It Hard To Fit Into Law School Cultures, Beverly I. Moran Jan 2002

Trapped By A Paradox: Speculations On Why Female Law Professors Find It Hard To Fit Into Law School Cultures, Beverly I. Moran

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Feminist psychologists postulate that women are more people focused than men and therefore less likely to be attracted to rule oriented cultures that do not take into account personal differences and needs. This work postulates that the opposite is true of males and females who are attracted to law school teaching. Instead of rule oriented men and people oriented women, the legal academy is populated by women who believe that rules are meant to protect the weak against the tyranny of the strong and who then find themselves in "female" cultures ruled by men.


Book Review Of Richard C. Cortner’S Civil Rights And Public Accommodations: The Heart Of Atlanta Motel And Mcclung Cases, Edward A. Purcell Jr. Jan 2002

Book Review Of Richard C. Cortner’S Civil Rights And Public Accommodations: The Heart Of Atlanta Motel And Mcclung Cases, Edward A. Purcell Jr.

Other Publications

No abstract provided.


Social Justice Movements And Latcrit Community: On Making Social Constructionist And Anti-Essentialist Arguments In Court, Suzanne B. Goldberg Jan 2002

Social Justice Movements And Latcrit Community: On Making Social Constructionist And Anti-Essentialist Arguments In Court, Suzanne B. Goldberg

Faculty Scholarship

This article examines the difficulties associated with identity-based arguments in litigation. In particular, the article considers the ways in which anti-essentialist and social constructionist framings of identity clash with judicial preferences for fixed identity categories. I review cases in which courts have addressed anti-essentialist and social constructionist arguments (both positively and negatively) and offer preliminary hypotheses to explain the limits on courts' willingness to accept these types of arguments