The Underrepresentation of Women of Color in Law Review Leadership Positions
The pipeline for women of color joining the law review and ascending into law review leadership positions, such as EIC, is one such site of legal education worth exposing. Part I introduces the problem by examining the limited research that shows a significant underrepresentation of women and people of color in law review leadership positions and by explaining the significance of such research. Part II explores the possible causes of this unfortunate phenomenon by uncovering the challenges that women of color face in obtaining law review leadership positions. Finally, Part III offers potential solutions for increasing opportunities for women of color in obtaining law review leadership positions.
The Persistent Gender Disparity in Student Note Publication
This Article presents original empirical research documenting a significant gender disparity in student note publication. Examination of the notes published during a ten-year time span in the general-interest law reviews at fifty-two schools - a total of nearly six thousand notes - reveals that women authored approximately forty percent of student notes, while men published almost sixty percent. At thirteen schools, women authored fewer than thirty-five percent of published student notes. The Article proposes a range of explanations for the disparity, recognizing that the explanation may differ from one school to the next and from one year to the next at the same school. Moreover, the Article argues that the disparity matters: it has negative consequences for women’s careers years after graduation from law school. Consequently, the Article concludes by offering some preliminary ideas about what law students, law reviews, and faculty members might do to remedy the gender disparity, and by encouraging stakeholders in the note publication process to continue the conversation within their institutions.
Testing the Core Empirical Implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi's General Theory of Crime
In A General Theory of Crime, Gottfredson and Hirschi propose that low self-control, in interaction with criminal opportunity, is the major cause of crime. The research reported in this article attempts to test this argument while closely following the nominal definitions presented by Gottfredson and Hirschi. A factor analysis of items designed to measure low self-control is consistent with their contention that the trait is unidimensional. Further, the proposed interaction effect is found for self-reported acts of both fraud and force (their definition of crime). Inconsistent with the theory are (a) the finding that criminal opportunity has a significant main effect, beyond its interaction with low self-control, on self-reported crime and (b) the substantial proportion of variance in crime left unexplained by the theoretical variables. Suggestions are offered for modifying and expanding the theory.