ILNews

Dean becomes president-elect; discussion on race at Valpo

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Law School Briefs

Law School Briefs is Indiana Lawyer’s section that highlights news from law schools in Indiana. While we have always covered law school news and will continue to keep up with law school websites and press releases for updates, we’ll gladly accept submissions for this section from law students, professors, alums, and others who want to share law school-related news. If you’d like to submit news or a photo from an event, please send it to Rebecca Berfanger, rberfanger@ibj.com, along with contact information for any follow up questions at least two weeks in advance of the issue date.

Robel is president-elect of AALS

Indiana University Maurer School of Law Dean Lauren K. Robel was elected president-elect of the American Association of Law Schools at the annual meeting of its House of Representatives Jan. 7. Her one-year term as president will begin January 2012.

Robel has been active within the association for many years, including a three-year term on the executive committee, membership on the Advisory Committee on the American Bar Association Accreditation Standards, and liaison to the ABA Council of the Section’s Special Committee on International Issues.

The AALS is a non-profit educational association of 171 law schools representing more than 10,000 law faculty in the U.S. whose purpose is the improvement of the legal profession through legal education. The AALS is the principal representative of legal education to the federal government, other national higher-education organizations, and international law schools.

Discussion on race at Valpo

“After Obama: Three ‘Post-Racial’ Challenges” is the 2011 Martin Luther King Lecture that will take place at Valparaiso University School of Law on Jan. 20. The event begins at 4 p.m. at Weseman Hall, 656 S. Greenwich St., Valparaiso. It is free and open to the public. Advance registration is not required.

The featured speaker, Devon Carbado, is professor of law and associate provost of UCLA School of Law. He teaches constitutional criminal procedure, constitutional law, critical race theory, and criminal adjudication.

His talk will focus on whether the election of President Barack Obama represents the beginning of an era of “post-racial” politics. Carbado’s presentation will highlight three challenges to claiming the election of an African-American president means the beginning of a post-racial society, while the issue of race still exists.

The challenges he will address, according to a news release from the law school, are: “What exactly is discrimination on the basis of race? What exactly is colorblindness? And, what exactly is a racial preference?”

This lecture has been approved for one CLE credit hour by the Indiana Commission on Continuing Legal Education. Attorneys seeking CLE credits are responsible for self-reporting to the appropriate MCLE board or commission. A Uniform Certificate of Attendance form will be available at the door.

Carbado writes in the areas of critical race theory, employment discrimination, criminal procedure, constitutional law, and identity. He is editor of “Race Law Stories” with Rachel Moran, and is working on a book on employment discrimination tentatively titled “Acting White,” with Mitu Gulati.

He is a former director of the Critical Race Studies Program at UCLA Law, a faculty associate of the Ralph J. Bunche Center for African-American Studies, a board member of the African-American Policy Forum and a James Town Fellow.

In 2003, Carbado was named the recipient of the Rutter Award for Excellence in Teaching, and he was recently awarded the University Distinguished Teaching Award. Carbado is a recipient of the Fletcher Foundation Fellowship, which is modeled on the Guggenheim awards and is given to scholars whose work furthers the goals of Brown v. Board of Education.

Carbado graduated from Harvard Law School in 1994, where he was editor-in-chief of the Harvard Black Letter Law Journal, a member of the board of student advisors, and winner of the Northeast Frederick Douglass Moot Court Competition.

For more information about this lecture, contact Lisa Todd at the law school at (219)465-7893 or lisa.todd@valpo.edu.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT