ILNews

Law School Briefs - 3/2/11

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Law School Briefs

Law school hosts poverty law event

The Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis, Neighborhood Christian Legal Clinic, and the Central Indiana Peace Corps Association hosted a poverty law event March 1 at the law school to discuss issues facing American families.

The event, “The Financial Crisis – Emerging Issues and Trends Faced by American Families” featured keynote speaker John Bouman, president of the Sargent Shriver National Center of Poverty Law. Bouman spoke about Sargent Shriver, founder of the center and first president of the United States Peace Corps program, and the 10 issues that need to be addressed to fight the war on poverty.

U.S. Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson introduced Bouman, and the legal clinic’s managing attorney Chris Purnell spoke about the core legal issues affecting impoverished people in central Indiana.

The event coincided with Peace Corps Week and the celebration of the organization’s 50th anniversary.

Pan-Asian conference to address democracy

Distinguished scholars from Indiana University, the Australian National University, and other institutions will address challenges to constitutional democracy in Asia March 4 to 5 during the symposium, “Difference and Constitutionalism in Asia.” The symposium will be held in the Moot Court Room of Indiana University Maurer School of Law, 211 S. Indiana Ave. in Bloomington. All panel discussions will be open to the public.

IU Maurer School of Law, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Office of the Vice President for International Affairs, the Center for the Study of the Middle East, the Center for Constitutional Democracy, the ANU-IU Pan Asia Institute at Indiana University, and the Australian National University will host the event.

Conference participants will discuss similarities and differences among constitutional democracies in Asia, as well as the changes to those countries since at least a dozen have proposed or adopted new constitutions or made important changes in existing constitutions over the last two decades.

Themes for the panel discussions are gender, ethnicity and race, the urban-rural divide, religion, and language. IU experts will be joined by panelists from Duke and Georgetown universities, the Australian National University, the University of Toronto, and the National Institute of Development Administration in Thailand. Organizers hope to contribute to building more stable and democratic governments in countries around the world.

Further details, including a conference program, can be found at http://iu.edu/~panasia/events/difference-and-constitutionalism-in-asia/. For more information, contact Melissa Biddinger, associate director of the ANU-IU Pan Asia Institute, at 812-855-0269 or mbidding@indiana.edu.

New class focuses on IP, museums, art

A new law course with a focus on art, museums, and publishing will begin this fall at Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis. The faculty approved the new course Feb. 15.

The class will be taught by intellectual property attorney Kenan Farrell, a solo practitioner in Indianapolis. It will be offered during the fall 2011 semester as an evening or Saturday course.

The course was requested by the Fashion Art and Design Law Society, which had its first meeting in November 2009 and currently has about 20 members. John R. Schaibley III, executive director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law and Innovation and adjunct professor of law, met with FAD officers who reviewed textbooks and proposed coursework, said FAD founding vice president, Erin Albert, a 3L student in the evening program.

While art law classes are taught at other law schools, a course on art, museum, and publishing law is rare, she said.•

 

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