Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Earlier this year I posted about the recent lawsuit brought by a group of people with developmental disabilities against a state facility in Cambridge, Minnesota, for illegal use of restraints and seclusion. Though the plaintiffs won that lawsuit, they don't seem to have won the fight to end these practices. The court-appointed monitor in that case just filed a report with the court finding that these practices persist, even in a progressive state like Minnesota, in the enlighted year of 2013, under the public glare of this litigation. That's the one step back.
But then, in New York City, Jimmy Jensen just successfully completed the NY Marathon -- the first person with Down Syndrome to do so! If you want to be really impressed by something you see on the internet, watch this story about him (HT: Rick -- thanks!)
Monday, November 4, 2013
Call for Proposals
Conversations and Workshops on Emerging Scholarship in Feminism, Law, and Religion
March 20-21, 2014
Woulfe Auditorium, Anderson Student Center
University of St. Thomas, St. Paul Campus
On March 20-21, 2013, the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota will be hosting a two-day program continuing a conversation begun by feminist legal scholars and theologians in the recently published collection of essays by feminists of a wide variety of religious perspectives, Feminism, Law, and Religion (Ashgate Press 2013, Failinger, Schiltz and Stabile eds). The book’s authors and others will be exploring the role that theology and religious law from various religious traditions can play in construing and critiquing just law throughout the world. The complete list of panel topics and speakers and conference registration information can be found on the university’s website here.
To enrich and continue this conversation beyond these two days, one segment of the conference will be devoted to supporting emerging scholarship on these issues. We are currently accepting proposals for two different types of opportunities for emerging scholars:
1) presenting a work-in-progress on feminism, law, and religion in a supportive workshop environment;
2) hosting an informal conversation on some particular aspect of this conference with other conference participants.
Scholars interested in either presenting a work-in-progress or hosting a conversation should send a brief (no longer than one page) description of their work or conversation topic to Seanne M. Harris, email@example.com by Nov. 30, 2013. Applicants will be notified of acceptance by December 15, 2013.
The University of St. Thomas College of Arts and Sciences, Jay Philips Center for Interfaith Learning, Luann Dummer Center for Women, Muslim-Christian Dialogue Center, Siena Symposiumfor Women, Family, and Culture, and the Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy at the University of St. Thomas.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
I've recently come across two new helpful resources for those recurring conversations with students and friends about the holy grail of 'balance' between professional and private demands. Dr. Denise Hunnell's essay on Truth and Charity Forum, an online publication of Human Life International, Distinguishing Vocations from Occupations, suggests that we keep clear the distinction between the 'vocations' (as priest, consecrated religious, parent, spouse, or single person) within which we live out our 'professions' (as taeacher, doctor, lawyer). She concedes "There is no doubt that the way we conduct our occupations will impact our vocations. Our challenge is to keep our occupations in perspective so that they never overshadow our vocations."
Dr. Hunnell offers this as a "tweak" to the approach I took in my book chapter, Dueling Vocations, where I offer some suggestions from Catholic teachings on navigating the tensions between what I called our public vocations ("our responsibilities to live and witness as Christians in and to the various social institutions to which we belong--the Church, our local communities, our places of employment, our country, and our world") and our private vocations ("our calling to live according to a Christian understanding of the web of relationships into which we are all personally imbedded"). Dr. Hunnell objects to the fact that I seem to give the two equal weight in my balancing, which is true. My argument is that both vocations should be viewed as responses to God's call, and that striving to honestly responding to that call rather than our own ambitions, insecurities, preferences, or weaknesses ought to help us make good decisions when conflicts arise.
Dr. Hunnell's essay also discusses another recent essay which I found very intriguing: No Happy Harmony (First Things, Oct. 2013), by Elizabeth Corey, associate professor of political science in the Honors College at Baylor University. Corey argues that something important is missing from the whole work/life balance debate of Anne-Marie Slaughter, Sheryl Sandberg, et al. It's this: "Work and family evoke from us two distinct modes of being and of relation to others. The conflicts between these modes cannot, if we are honest with ourselves, be wished away or ignored." Drawing on Aristotle & Josef Pieper, Corey points out that professional excellence demands an Aristotlean dedication to the pursuit of "moral and intellectual perfection." In contrast, motherhood demands Peiper's notion of leisure: "the condition of attention and activity that isn't striving." She concludes: " these two endeavors require different orientations of the self, and we simply cannot approach marriage and family in the spirit of achievement at all. If we try to do so, we will find ourselves frustrated and conflicted. For well-behaved or smart children are not markers of our success; children are ends in themselves, to be loved and cared for as individuals. They need from us something other than our talents; they need us, full stop." She argues that attempts to offer solutions to these sorts of conflict are illusory, simply "evasions." I suppose I'm a bit more positive than she is about how we can attempt to make peace with those tensions, but her analysis of the situation stikes me as insightful and helpful.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
I'm currently in Rome, where I have the privilege of participating in a conference hosted by the Pontifical Council for the Family and the Union of Catholic Jurists, and funded by Priests for Life, on "The Rights of the Family and the Challenges of the Contemporary World." The Conference was organized to consider the continued relevance of the Charter of the Rights of the Family, promulgated by the Pontifical Council for the Family 30 years ago. One of today's highlights was an excellent presentation by our own Fr. Araujo, who managed (despite having his time cut from 30 minutes to 15) to give a splendid summary of work I hope he's planning on publishing somewhere on "Totalitarian Democracy and Defending the Meaning of Marriage and the Family." He describes the work of Israeli professor of modern history Jacob Talmon (developed as well by Christopher Dawson) on how superficially democratic political philosophies can devolve into totaliarian regimes, and suggests that the Casey decision's definition of liberty is turning out to be "a revolutionary exercise of the present day totalitarian democracy."
Today's agenda for the conference involved formal presentations of similar quality, but I suspect things will get even more interesting the next two days, as the entire group separates into discussion groups on a host of topics, from "work, family and economic challenges", to "pluralism, human relationships and lifestyles", to "family in the immigration experience". International conferences like this can be true tonic for the battle-weary Catholic soul, especially when held at the Vatican. Masses where the readings are done in English, French, Spanish, and Italian, with the universal Latin shared by all binding us together in worship, are potent reminders of the universality of our faith. Already today, in the breaks and meal conversations, and the question and answer sessions, intriguing similarities and differences are emerging. I've had conversations in German with Austrian lawyers, and in English with Spanish law professors, about how Catholic high schools and universities in our respective countries are doing in educating our Catholic youth. A law professor from Japan taught me that the Japanese penal code started as a Chinese system, which was supplanted by the Napoleonic Code, which was in turn replaced by the German penal code, which was in turn replaced by an American system after World War II. (Try teaching THAT, Rick and Marc!) She also expressed amazement at the discussions of same-sex marriage debates raised in many of the presentations today, saying that these debates were not taking place in Japan, she speculated, "because children are so important to us."
It's good to be reminded sometimes of how big the world is, how parochial our own political battles are, and how some things are simply universal truths.
Friday, September 6, 2013
This semester, two UST Law students who are Murphy Institute Scholars will be blogging about their experiences as interns supporting the work of the the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See at the United Nations in New York and Geneva. Rachana Chhin will be blogging from New York, and Joseph Grodahl Bieve from Geneva. Joseph has been travelling to Geneva via Poland, and has already posted some fascinating observations about his visits to Kraków ("the archdiocese where Karol Wojtyła sat as archbishop before becoming Pope John Paul II"), Częstochowa ("a sort of spiritual capital of Poland"), and Auschwitz (where Joseph describes how he can feel "he darkness and evil of the place"). His perceptive remarks are accompanied by photos -- including of the cell where Fr. Maximilian Kolbe embraced his martyrdom.
Bookmark this blog, for what promise to be fascinating glimpses of the work of the Holy See at the U.N. during this semester!
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Over the past summer, I’ve been working on a fascinating project for the Minnesota Governor’s Council on Developmental Disabilities, which is working with the Twin Cities Public Television station to develop a “Disability Justice Resource Center” website for lawyers and law students working on disability rights issues. The Minnesota Governor’s Council itself already has an extremely robust website, with a wealth of resources for anyone interested in the history and current state of the disability rights movement. Their two-part “Parallels in Time” presentation of the history of social attitudes toward people with disabilities and the rise of the disability rights movement starts from 1500 B.C., and is populated with fascinating pictures and videos. The Minnesota Governor’s Council developed the “Partners in Policymaking ®” advocacy training program for people with disabilities and their family members over 25 years ago; since then it has been exported to over 35 states and a number of other countries. (I participated in it in Indiana while I was teaching at Notre Dame.) Their website has a number of fine (and free) on-line courses on disability advocacy, covering the history of the disability rights movement, independent living issues, education, and employment.
I kept thinking about this “Disability Justice Resource Center” project during yesterday’s celebration of the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington. Much of the coverage of the events highlighted and analyzed how things have (or haven’t) changed for African Americans in the intervening 50 years. The same sort of reflection is merited for people with disabilities, who continue to struggle to overcome both the challenges raised by their disabilities, and the challenges raised by social attitudes toward people with disabilities.
And these challenges are NOT limited to the subtle sorts of ADA challenges and biases alleged in many of the legal cases that tend to get the most media attention. Case in point: the source of the funding for this particular project. In July 2009, three plaintiffs sued the State of Minnesota for its treatment of people with developmental disabilities at a facility in Cambridge, Minnesota. In December 2011, Federal District Court Judge Donovan Frank approved a settlement agreement that awarded the plaintiffs $2.9 million, shut down the treatment program, and required the State to “immediate and permanently discontinue the use of mechanical restraint (including metal law enforcement-type handcuffs and leg hobbles, cable tie cuffs, PlasticCuffs, FlexiCuffs, soft cuffs, posey cuffs, and any other mechanical means to restrain), manual restraint, prone restraint, chemical restraint, seclusion, and the use of painful techniques to induce changes in behavior through punishment of residents with developmental disabilities. Medical restraint, and psychotropic and/or neuroleptic medications shall not be administered to residents for punishment, in lieu of adequate and appropriate habilitation, skills training and behavior supports plans, for the convenience of staff and/or as a form of behavior modification.” After the settlement agreement funds were distributed to class members, Judge Frank ordered a cy pres fund be established for this project -- a public education campaign to break stereotypes about people with developmental disabilities.
A newspaper article about this settlement began as follows:
On Halloween night 1949, Minnesota Gov. Luther Youngdahl stood aside a bonfire outside Anoka State Hospital and, with fanfare, burned 359 straitjackets and hundreds of other restraints he said were sinister relics of a more barbarous time.
“By this action we say that we have liberated ourselves from witchcraft – that in taking off mechanical restraints from the patients, we are taking off intellectual restraint from ourselves,” the governor said.
Apparently, we forgot.
The more time I spend on this project, the more concerned I become that "we" are forgetting some of the most vulnerable among us.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Monday, June 3, 2013
I spent this past Friday and Saturday with an exceptionally congenial group of scholars, at a symposium the Murphy Institute co-sponsored with the Center for Thomas More Studies at the University of Dallas. Under the extremely able guidance of the Center's Director, Dr. Gerard Wegemer, and two of its Fellows, David Oakley and Louis Karlin, we read and discussed portions of More's Utopia, Richard III, Tyrannicide, documents about his trial, and various letters, including the Dialogue on Conscience. Participants included a number of fellow MOJ-ers (Marc DeGirolami, the Michaels Moreland & Scaperlanda, Tom Berg, and Susan Stabile), as well as other legal scholars from here and abroad.
I had always admired More for the courage of his witness, but never read his work. Reading such a wide swath of his work under such informed guidance was a revelation. We were challenged to think about More's actions and his writings as lawyers, not just scholars -- a rich exercise for bringing to life both the stakes and the contemporary relevance of his actions and his words (and his silences). Wegemer, Oakley, and Karlin are all contributors to a valuable new resource for anyone who might want to use More as the subject of any law school class: Thomas More's Trial by Jury: A Procedural and Legal Review with a Collection of Documents. (The volume also includes contributions from two of the other participants in our symposium, Sir Michael Tugendhut, Justice of the Queen's Bench, and Richard Helmholtz.)
But the symposium certainly helped me appreciate that More's writings deserve attention for more than just the lessons of conscience and principle on display in his trial. Some of our criminal law professors at the symposium were struck by how effective Raphael Hytholoday's account of his conversation with Cardinal Morton on how to properly punish thieves (in Book I of Utopia) might be in teaching theories of punishment in a criminal law class.
One of the pieces I personally found most intriguing is from the Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation, an essay entitled On Private Property, Riches, and Poverty, in which More attempts to sort through some of Jesus' most challenging charges: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple" (Lk 14:26) and: "whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple" (Lk 14:33). In the essay More (as is typical for him) teases out the many complex layers of the practical implications of what those charges might mean for us. In our symposium, Steve Smith made the point that More's analysis might be a helpful contribution in many of our contemporary political debates, such as immigration. I agree. It seems to me that More's work might be a helpful supplement to some arguments typically made in terms of subsidiarity, the preferential option for the poor, or Aquinas' 'order of charity'.
More writes, for example: ". . . though I am obliged to meet in some way the needs of every kind of person, whether friend or foe, Christian or heathen, my obligation is not the same toward every person, nor toward any one person in every situation. A difference in circumstances greatly affects the matter. . . . Those are ours who belong to our charge either by nature, by law, or by some commandment of God. . . . Once God has by such chance sent [some stranger in need] to me, and has matched me with him, I consider myself definitely responsible for him until I can be rightly and decently, without any risk to his life, discharged of that responsibility. . . . [On the other hand] as much as God and nature both bind me to the sustenance of my own father, his need may be so little (though it is something), and a stranger's need so great, their needs may be so unequal, that both nature and God would have me releive that urgent necessity of a stanger -- even if it's an enemy of mine and God's too . . . -- before releiving a little need that is unlikely to do great harm to my father and my mother too."
I highly recommend the resources of the Center for Thomas More Studies -- both on their website and in on their staff -- for anyone interested in studying this great saint.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Thursday, May 9, 2013
As the academic year winds down, many of us academics and scholars are engaged right now intensively in either grading or writing. I just finished grading a group of final papers from my Consumer Law students. I was, as usual, pleased by some of the excellent, elegant writing that I saw, but frustrated by some of the writing that showed signs of the cut-and-paste-from-electronic-sources-and-hope-the-structure-will-be-evident approach that seems to characterize a lot of writing these days. (And not just student writing. This is a frequent complaint I hear from my husband, a judge who increasingly encounters this in court filings.)
I'm also working intensely on some of my own writing, and I find myself this morning at my computer, surrounded by piles of note cards covered with my handwritten scribbles, organized into piles that correspond to the themes I want to address in my paper. The process of scribbling out those note cards while I research something is never efficient. It always takes much more time to get through books when I'm taking these sorts of notes than it would be if I just read the book & tagged important sections with sticky tabs, or even if I typed the 'important quotes' directly onto my computer. I often think there must be a quicker way to do some of this, but I can't bring myself to work any other way when I'm really trying to think something through.
This morning, I read a book review in the Chronicle of Higher Education that I think will ease my mind about this process, and explain why I was so happy to drive my 12-year old daughter to Target to buy her some more note cards that she wanted to use for studying. It was a review of a new book by Philip Hensher, The Missing Ink: The Lost Art of Handwriting. Robert Bliwise, the reviewer, explains:
Hensher's overarching idea is that we're at a cultural tipping point: This is "a moment when, it seems, handwriting is about to vanish from our lives altogether," he writes. He wonders whether that vanishing act will point to a more profound phenomenon. "Is anything going to be lost apart from the habit of writing with pen on paper? Will some part of our humanity, as we have always understood it, disappear as well?"
I haven't read the book yet, but the review focuses mostly on Hensher's concern that what will disappear is all the signals about the individuality of the hand-writer -- in Catholic terms, perhaps, the aspect of the words that reveals the human person behind the ideas. I wonder, though, if the transition to an all-mechanical world of writing might also carry some cost in terms of the content of the writing itself. Bliwise writes:
Hensher says his creative-writing students increasingly resist the idea of the handwritten journal and the practice of taking notes by hand. Handwriting, he suggests, slows us down, and we can't think deeply without slowing down. The very best students are "the ones who take out a piece of paper and a pen" in the classroom—the ones who "write down the things that they think are interesting as you talk, making sense of it as they go."
If all op-ed authors had to hand write their opinions before they could be published, if T.V. and radio pundits had to hand write their thoughts before reading them on air, if all bloggers had to hand write their posts before posting, might that positively influence what is commonly seen as the 'cheapening' of public discourse? ( ..... I write, on-line, mechanically, without having put pen or pencil to paper myself yet today...)