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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT