Valparaiso law school hosts discussion on race for MLK event

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 2011 Martin Luther King Lecture, “After Obama: Three ‘Post-Racial’ Challenges,” will take place at Valparaiso University School of Law 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


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I commend Joe for standing up to this tyrant attorney! You ask why? Well I’m one of David Steele victims. I was in desperate need of legal help to protect my child, David saw an opportunity, and he demanded I pay him $3000. Cash. As I received motions and orders from court he did nothing! After weeks of emails asking him to address the legal issues, he responded by saying he was “on vacation “and I should be so lucky to have “my attorney” reply. Finally after lie on top of lie I asked for a full refund, which he refused. He then sent me “bills” for things he never did, such as, his appearance in the case and later claimed he withdrew. He never filed one document / motion for my case! When I finally demanded he refund my money he then turn to threats which scared my family for our lives. It seem unreal we couldn’t believe this guy. I am now over $100,000 in debt digging out of the legal mess he caused my family. Later I was finally able to hire another law office. I met Joe and we worked diligently on my case. I soon learn Joe had a passion for helping people. As anyone who has been through a legal battle it is exhausting. Joe was always more than happy to help or address an issue. Joe was knowledgeable about all my concerns at the same time he was able to reduce the stress and anxieties of my case. He would stay late and come in early, he always went the extra mile to help in any way he could. I can only imagine what Joe and his family has been through, my prayers go out to him and all the victims.

  2. Steele did more than what is listed too. He purposely sought out to ruin me, calling potential employers and then lied about me alleging all kinds of things including kidnapping. None of his allegations were true. If you are in need of an ethical and very knowledgeable family law paralegal, perhaps someone could post their contact information. Ethics cannot be purchased, either your paralegal has them or they do not.

  3. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  4. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  5. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise