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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT