I'm really happy with the comments function on this blog, which I reactivated a week ago. The discussion on this post, from yesterday, is especially interesting. If you read far enough down into the comments, you'll see that I bring up the subject of a women-only law school. I wanted to start a separate place here to discuss the topic: Should there be an all-women law school?
UPDATE: Christine Hurt says no to the all-women law school. By the way, I realize that there are some serious legal and accreditation problems with such a school -- as noted by various commenters -- and I don't purport to know the answers. I'm mostly interested in speculating about whether it would be a good idea. It's not worth bothering to figure out those details if it's not even a good idea to have an all-women law school. But some commenters seem to think it's not worth figuring out if it's a good idea if there's a legal/accreditation problem. I disagree!
१६ एप्रिल, २००५
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१४ टिप्पण्या:
I see not anything wrong with an all-women law school. Presumedly, this would allow for all-men law schools, all-gay/etc law schools, just-Catholic law schools, only-white, only-black.... Are we really asking for the return "separate, but equal?"
Dean, you should read what Justice Ginsburg wrote about all-female schools in United States v. Virginia the case that rejected the all-male Virginia Military Institute. Here's the key passage:
""Inherent differences" between men and women, we have come to appreciate, remain cause for celebration, but not for denigration of the members of either sex or for artificial constraints on an individual's opportunity. Sex classifications may be used to compensate women "for particular economic disabilities [they have] suffered," to "promote equal employment opportunity," to advance full development of the talent and capacities of our Nation's people. But such classifications may not be used, as they once were, to create or perpetuate the legal, social, and economic inferiority of women."
Ginsburg, writing for the majority, cited the Brief of Amici Curiae Twenty-six Private Women's Colleges with approval and carefully framed equal protection doctrine to respect the interests of these institutions.
I think an all female law school would be permissible. In the passage you cited, there's an assumption that any separation of sexes represents a denigration of the other. I don't quite believe that. Where's the restriction to a good college education?
Is Smith denigrating/limiting others by restricting admission to females? Couldn't the Citadel open an all female section to satisfy women who want a military career?
Common sense eventually has to come into play to accomodate small but important classes, for instance, transgendered people. The law cannot fix every life problem.
O/T: Ten years ago I worked on a lawsuit filed by a male transitioning to female. He objected that his employer refused to acknowledge this or let him (very female looking) use the ladies room. The defendant? The ACLU! :)
Did Justice Ginsburg mean that an all-male college by its very nature "create[s] or perpetuate[s] the legal, social, and economic inferiority of women"? If so, couldn't one argue that maintaining an all-female institution does the same thing, since it might be deemed a tacit admission that women are less able to compete in a co-ed environment? Or, more weirdly, would the reverse of Ginsburg's opinion, an all-female college would create or perpetuate the legal, social, and economic superiority of women, be valid? I would hope not.
More to the point of your post, I have no problem with an all-female law school. What I do have a problem with is that many of the same people who argue so vehemently for such an institution, argue equally vehemently against the same thing for men. The results can be seen here, 3 all-male colleges versus 67 all-female.
G. Hamid
Did Justice Ginsburg mean that an all-male college by its very nature "create[s] or perpetuate[s] the legal, social, and economic inferiority of women"? If so, couldn't one argue that maintaining an all-female institution does the same thing, since it might be deemed a tacit admission that women are less able to compete in a co-ed environment? Or, more weirdly, would the reverse of Ginsburg's opinion, an all-female college would create or perpetuate the legal, social, and economic inferiority of men, be valid? I would hope not.
More to the point of your post, I have no problem with an all-female law school. What I do have a problem with is that many of the same people who argue so vehemently for such an institution, argue equally vehemently against the same thing for men. The results can be seen here, 3 all-male colleges versus 67 all-female.
G. Hamid
Sorry for the double post. There is a small change, though it's not that important.
G. Hamid
"Sex classifications may be used to compensate women "for particular economic disabilities [they have] suffered," to "promote equal employment opportunity," to advance full development of the talent and capacities of our Nation's people. " So how many years after women have been compensate "for particular economic disabilities [they have] suffered," and men may apply for compensation from "particular economic disabilities [they have] suffered" that surely will occur by human abuse with power?
JK: I can't imagine wanting to found a law school that wouldn't be accredited, but let's assume for the sake of argument, that the notion of a law school designed to advance women would be able to overcome that obstacle, and my question is whether it would be a desirable thing.
I believe that an all-woman law school would have a large potential upside. Having said that, I wonder if there would be much of a market for it. It might be the case that, if it was a workable idea, somebody would have tried to start one already.
Anecdotally, I have three good friends who went to historically black colleges and who are now law students. None of them had any interest in Howard Law School.
Perhaps the opportunity to go to professional school with classmates who more closely represent the bar as a whole is more appealing than the opportunity to learn in an environment where you are surrounded by people with whom you have a lot in common. Just an idea, I don't really know if this is true.
Personally, I'd like to see an all-women's law school ( assuming aguendo the ability to actually get accredited) for many reasons.
But, then, I'd also want to ensure that MtF transsexuals were allowed in (even ones that didn't pass (i.e. were noticably TS)). :)
Not the cleverest point, but wouldn't it be worth having an all-women law school just to see what would happen? I'm uneasy about experimenting with elementary school educational methods because if they don't work, then there are kids who can't read. But why should I, or anyone else, have any objection to adults trying something a new way? On what basis can anyone presume to know what sort of lawyers such a school would produce?
But think of what we're talking about here: women who want to be lawyers. A court room lawyer is expected to be able to fight fierce legal battles in order to win a case. She is going to have to deal with judges and opposing counsel . . .
But so much of real-world law has nothing to do with that. I've been practicing (as a litigator) for seven years, and only once have I had a contested evidentiary hearing before a judge. And for the world of non-litigators -- whether it's corporate practice, or lobbying, or working for a government agency -- it's completely different altogether.
Law schools are academic schools -- it's not a vo-tech.
There shouldn't be an all-women law school because there shouldn't really be more law schools generally.
And no, that's not a snarky anti-lawyer commnent. It may be a snarky anti-law-school comment, however.
(yes, I'm in law school.)
Are the Co-ed schools not adequate? Is there any particular reason why there needs to be an all-female school? Seems like it is fine the way it is to me.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा