California Feminist Blogs

Patrick Henry High School (my mom's alma mater hehe) crowned the first lesbian homecoming king yesterday, Rebeca Arellano! Arellano's girlfriend, Haileigh Adams, was also nominated for queen, but we won't know the results of that race until tomorrow (as I'm sure there will be some online follow-up buzz)!

The HuffPost article I linked to above also makes mention of the first homecoming queen with down syndrome, Mariah Slick, crowned this year as well.

I could see Rebeca and Mariah being used as tokens to deny the rampant discrimination against these populations in public schools. However, even the circulation of these stories and images seems to have potential for normalizing LGBTQ and/or disabled students. Is that what we want? What do you think?

Candace Gibson, University of Utah College of Law

As many of you know, October is National Domestic Violence Awareness Month.  For the past couple of years, the Women Lawyers of Utah and other Utah bar organizations have planned the Walk Against Violence as a way to fundraise for our local YWCA.  Because of this, the University of Utah Law Students for Reproductive Justice Chapter (UULSRJ) began its public relations efforts at our law school by tabling on various reproductive justice issues.  In this manner, we hope to educate people about reproductive justice in all its intersectional, multi issue glory.  So last week we tabled on domestic violence and in the coming weeks, we will table on infant and maternal mortality, global reproductive rights, and health disparities.

As we talked to students about our chapter, I noticed that we had some problems communicating what reproductive justice is as a concept and as a way of organizing.  I think there are two reasons for this.  First, we need to get better at our basic thirty second elevator spiel.  Second, I think when some people of my generation hear “reproductive” they automatically think of abortion and contraceptives.  In fact, as I was discussing the national LSRJ office and our multi-issue work to a classmate, she told me that she thought that the term “reproductive justice” wasn’t useful for our mission.  She thought we should use another phrase because to her, “reproductive justice” automatically links to “reproductive rights” and makes her think of only abortion and contraceptives.  As I talked to another peer, he said the same thing, and then I talked to a first year, and he had no clue what I was discussing.

So this begs three questions.  Can reproductive justice ever be explained in a sound bite like the “Pro-Choice” or “Pro-Life” communities describe themselves (and thus be easily digested) and, more importantly, do we even want that?  As a movement, do we need to better articulate what reproductive justice is and better publicize the work that we do on multiple issues?  This is tougher than it appears to be, as I think that because we constantly have to defeat onslaughts of anti-women and anti-family legislation, individuals outside our movement think that we only work on abortion and contraceptive issues.

While some of you ponder these questions, send your 30 second RJ soundbites my way!

Ahem:

A racial and/or gender analysis of Occupy Wall Street is not just about "adding (token) voices to the movement;" it's ridiculous to even have a conversation about class without recognizing the ways race and gender have been & still are justifications for class oppression, not to mention the fact that some races in the US had to start with (less than) nothing just a few generations ago while members of (over)privileged groups are living off of inherited wealth to some degree, or at least have access to upward mobility that members of oppressed groups don't have.

Not everyone in the "99%" is experiencing the wealth disparity the same way; I say we need to really address the issues of the "bottom," say, 10-20%. By focusing on and addressing their issues we are addressing the structures that normalize free or nearly free labor that this country was built on.

Mallory Carlberg, University of Oklahoma College of Law

After some trouble getting official recognition and a faculty sponsor, our first event is FINALLY happening next week. In the mean time, my co-chair and I have been assembling the executive board and promoting the event. This gave us many opportunities to have conversations about reproductive justice. The stories students told when we broached the subject impacted us both. Almost every student we spoke to had personally dealt with an RJ issue.

One of our members was overjoyed when she found out she was pregnant last year. Then her baby was diagnosed with anencephaly, the absence of a large part of a brain and skull. This condition is usually not detected until late in the pregnancy. She was devastated and eventually decided to have a D & C. After learning that Oklahoma legislators were considering banning abortions after twenty weeks last session, she wanted to tell her story. A journalist interviewed her, but never published her story, saying that if she came out publicly about her late abortion, she would receive death threats. She wanted people to know how the ban will harm women who are in a similar position as she was. The law is set to go into effect on November first of this year.

Others students shared sex education experiences. Many received abstinence-only education, which often teaches students to be ashamed of their sexuality, and reinforces harmful stereotypes about men as unable to control their passions and women as the gatekeepers of morality. I often shared my sex education story about a goldfish. One day my instructor brought a goldfish in a cup to class, and likened us to the goldfish and god’s protection to the water. She then threw the contents of the cup, goldfish and all, across the room, and explained that, that is what we are like when we are outside god’s protection. She further explained that when we have premarital sex, we are outside god’s protection because we are sinning. This lesson taught us that we could either be clean, healthy virgins or dirty, unhealthy non-virgins – gasping for air on the floor, dying. There was no discussion of how we could place ourselves somewhere in the middle of those two extremes with safer sex practices.

Statistics, theories and hypotheticals are important, but personal stories affect people on a different level. Speaking with fellow students has only reinforced for me the importance of achieving reproductive justice for all. These are not peripheral problems. Reproductive oppression affects everyone at some point in their lives. We hope others come to see this through hearing stories from their fellow students at meetings.

Susy Prochazka, Thomas Jefferson School of Law

Thomas Jefferson LSRJ regularly hosts a “Dinner and a Movie” night once a month, where we indulge in pizza, nachos, and popcorn, watch RJ-related films, and have a faculty-led discussion where we delve into the issues raised in the film.  In the past, we have watched such heavy films as “If These Walls Could Talk,” “Losing Isaiah,” and “Vera Drake.”  In the spirit of Halloween, we are planning to show a “scary” RJ movie, showing the dire social consequences of the lack of access to education about contraceptives and STIs.

Last week, ten of us watched “Citizen Ruth,” a 1996 film that satirizes the conflict between the Pro-Choice and the Pro-Life camps. The film opens with Ruth getting arrested for huffing spray-paint in an alley.  Ruth is an addict, makes regular appearances in jail, and has been declared an unfit mother by the state four times over. Upon her arrest, Ruth learns that she is pregnant again; the judge threatens to charge Ruth with “felony fetal endangerment” unless Ruth obtains an abortion.  Ruth is unsure of what decision to make when faced with this puzzling offer – she is portrayed as a hapless drug addict, uneducated about the politics of the abortion debate, yet very quickly she gets thrust right in the middle. Ruth encounters Pro-Choice and Pro-Life individuals, inadvertently becoming the symbolic center of the struggle between the two groups, as they both vie for Ruth to act according to their particular beliefs.  Both sides attempt to sway Ruth with monetary incentives, both offering $15,000 to secure Ruth’s promise to either continue or terminate the pregnancy.

Ruth is learning about her right to freely govern her body, but she is simultaneously tempted by the money, which is more than she has ever seen. However, before a decision can be made, Ruth suffers a miscarriage. The movie ends shortly after, with Ruth securing $15,000 and sneaking away from oblivious protestors of both camps, who do not even notice that the subject of their vehement shouting has absconded the scene.

Following the movie, our faculty advisor started off a great discussion, asking us to think about what it means to truly believe in an individual’s right to parent, a central tenet to the RJ movement. In the film, the State has declared Ruth to be an unfit mother, thereby intervening in a woman’s right to raise her children. This presents a “slippery-slope” dilemma: at what point may the State intervene and tell a woman she may not have any more children? May the State order a woman to terminate her pregnancy when she has proven to be incapable of raising the children she already has? When has a woman reached such a point – what standards must be met?

We also discussed the paradox presented by the judge’s threat to charge Ruth with felony fetal endangerment, which he later offered to retract if Ruth obtained an abortion: why is endangering a fetus illegal when the potential harm is caused by illegal acts such as drug use, but is legal when the woman is exercising her right to have an abortion? Should there even be a legal or noticeable difference?

And what about the politics of it all? What are the moral implications of Pro-Choice and Anti-Choice members actively attempting to buy Ruth’s choice? Does Ruth lose her freedom to choose when money enters the picture? What does Ruth’s lack of education about the politics of the abortion debate and her right to choose say about the struggle between the two camps? What are the ramifications of this depiction of lack of education say about the movement? Is the debate limited only to the socially elite who can afford to participate? Do the uneducated and the poor have any say in the debate – or is it restricted to the stereotypical rich, white woman?

While we were not able to reach any clear, defining answers to these questions raised by the film, it was a great discussion that allowed everyone to express their opinions on relevant RJ issues. I highly recommend other chapters do such an event, as new and old members can comfortably debate and express themselves in a casual environment. It’s a fun and low-key event that is great for education, building cohesion and friendships between chapter members, and of course, there are nachos!

Nikola Nable-Juris & Meredith Leeson, University of Maryland School of Law

After our first year of law school, we knew a lot about the law–elements of a negligence claim, reasons a contract may be unenforceable, and the mens rea needed for different criminal charges.  However, for those of us looking to relate these principles to real life, the core courses of our education failed to reflect our personal and political realities.  Torts class neglected to mention tort claims for forced sterilization or medical complications resulting from being shackled during delivery, and Contracts class kept silent on contracts between same-sex couples creating families.  We entirely missed the range of criminal charges for pregnant women who struggle with addiction in Criminal Law, and Roe v. Wade made only a brief appearance in second year Constitutional Law.  Even electives like health law or family law that touch on some of these issues often lack a comprehensive intersectional analysis.  Instead of being frustrated by what we weren’t being taught, University of Maryland’s LSRJ chapter channeled its energy into proposing the course we wanted to take—a Reproductive Justice (RJ) course.

In early September 2010, with a small executive board and a designated Course Campaign Coordinator, we launched a course campaign on Maryland’s campus.  The Coordinator researched which other law schools had existing RJ courses (only 39 schools offer a reproductive rights law or justice course), examined their curriculums, and gathered over 300 student signatures of support by tabling in the hallway and giving short presentations in classes. The Coordinator compiled all of this information into a comprehensive proposal, including a list of eleven other student organizations in support of the course, an alumni letter of support, and the 2010 LSRJ Course Survey (updated 2011 LSRJ Course Survey here).  We presented this proposal to the Law School’s Associate Dean for Academic Programs with arguments for why this course was necessary.  We are proud to announce that the University of Maryland will be offering “Reproductive Justice and the Law” in Spring 2012, taught by Professor Leslie Meltzer Henry.  For those of us who recognize the RJ framework to be a valuable viewpoint, this course will be critical to our education as informed social justice advocates. Even for those who are new to reproductive rights, the RJ course will provide an important foundation for understanding some of the most important and contentious political and social issues of our times.

In law school, we are taught to be advocates, whether as litigators, policy makers, or impartial decision makers. As students, we must begin our advocacy careers by taking charge of shaping our own legal education. In addition to resulting in a fantastic course, a course campaign allows students to build networks of like-minded students and faculty, interact with school administrators, and spread the word about RJ to diverse audiences on campus. By campaigning for the RJ courses at our own school, we learned the fundamentals of being advocates even before setting foot in the courtroom.

Recently, the Law School Admissions Council (LSAC), the organization that administers the LSAT, refused to accommodate a nursing mother who asked for additional break time to pump her breast milk. You can read more about it here. Two members of the LSRJ family want to share their thoughts on the situation: new mom Sara Taylor (’11, University of Michigan Law School) and resident blogger Joanne Caceres (’13, Harvard Law School).

If you want to take action, visit the ACLU Women’s Rights Project website.

Dear LSAC:

I am writing to ask you to seriously reconsider the Law School Admissions Council’s alleged policy of refusing accommodations for breast feeding women during the LSAT.  Breast feeding is not an ethos, it’s a serious physical issue that deserves serious consideration.

As a nursing mother, I would not think twice about asking for accommodation.  Having to be away from my infant and pump is an incredibly inconvenient enterprise, and one that I have to engage in as a working mother who ascribes to medical studies that breast milk has marvelous and unparalleled health benefits for my daughter.  I already have to suffer a great many social consequences for this choice.  This is the new century but people are no less disparaging of breast feeding in public.  While out, there are no outlets or chairs in public restrooms.  I have frequently had to feed my daughter bent over a changing table or sitting on a toilet.  While working, I have to find twenty minutes and an available conference room with a locking door and no windows, then I get to carry my pump equipment to the bathroom to wash it and find a spare spot in the fridge for all to see.  But I do it willingly, I do it for her.

I recently received a job interview that required travel.  I asked if, as a nursing mother, I could bring my daughter.  In the alternative, I asked to be gone no more than two days because I would have to pump milk ahead of time (which is exhausting and laborious).

The schedulers went out of their way to accommodate me, letting me take my daughter as a lap infant and making sure travel was short and that I had everything I needed.  And they did so as a pure matter of course, no problem at all.  I thought to myself, how wonderfully far we’ve come, when ten years ago I would have been afraid to mention that I was a mother when going to an interview, and I can now mention it and no one thinks twice.

When a nursing mother tells you they need time off to pump, they are not asking for any favors.  A pump isn’t the functional equivalent of a child; it doesn’t get all the milk out, reduces output later, extracts milk forcefully, and it requires lugging the pump around, washing out all the parts, and finding a way to store or dump the milk.  Pumping for 20 minutes doesn’t yield much milk and it takes about 45 minutes just to do it.  Plus, having that many calories removed from you at once is exhausting!  It’s a major hassle – it is not something one would choose to do unless they needed to do it.

Disappointingly few mothers are applying to law school and their perspective is both meaningful and worth cultivating.  Let’s try and minimize their barriers to entry wherever possible.  Pumping itself is a barrier, why in the world would you make it harder than that?

A proudly pumping attorney,

Sara Taylor (’11, University of Michigan Law School)

***********************

I’m sure anyone who keeps track of reprorights issues has heard about LSAC’s refusal to accommodate a nursing mother during the LSAT. After outreach from the ACLU, MomsRising and other advocates, LSAC’s response was that it was under no legal obligation to provide such accommodations. We should be mad at the policies of LSAC, and reach out to let them know this behavior isn’t acceptable. However, what is most troubling to me in not that in this day and age an organization could be so callous, it’s that we are moved to public outrage and letter writing because LSAC is right, they have no legal obligation to accommodate a nursing mother who is not an employee. I think that’s the real problem.

For all the benefits and advances women have thanks to Title IX in school and Title VII in employment, moments like these should remind us that those two laws do not encompass all of society. The most recent outrage with LSAC is a great illustration of the role private businesses—who may be restricted from discriminating against female employees but not clients—can affect something as fundamental to the American notion of equality as education.

So what should be done? Don’t let this blog serve to keep you from writing to LSAC. Public shaming does work to make single organizations fix audacious behavior in some instances. It may even cause other testing companies (whose policies I don’t know) to think hard before denying a similar request from a nursing mother in the future. Perhaps a case can be made to extend Title IX to private organizations whose services are used for entry into an educational program or activity that accepts federal funding. But if we want to promote more systemic change, I think we need better laws to protect women’s rights outside of work and the classroom. To do that, we need more pro-women politicians in office!

Joanne Caceres, Harvard Law School

Burke Bindbeutel, University of Missouri School of Law

Last Sunday night I felt an urge to see Ben Roethlisberger of the Pittsburgh Steelers crushed by opposing linebackers. This was not because I am an Indianapolis Colts fan (I am not). No, I wanted the beefy quarterback to be Theismannized because his off-the-field conduct has earned him two accusations of sexual assault. Roethlisberger continues to receive the adulation of the Pittsburgh faithful despite behavior that puts less talented men behind bars.

Last year, right in my hometown, the Missouri Tigers suspended their team captain indefinitely due to a sex crime allegation. He was eventually convicted. Could it be that there is a necessary link between football and sexual violence?

I don’t think so, but that doesn’t keep me from worrying about the permissive culture surrounding student-athletes. Ex-NCAA President Walter Byars called it a “neoplantation mentality”: the strongest and fastest are culled into football programs, pushed to win at any cost, then are cut out of the tremendous profits that schools reap from their toil. Keeping the exploited athletes happy has, at some football programs, meant indulging their appetites for sex.

The University of Missouri sits in a football-crazed college town, which this month will celebrate its 100th Homecoming game. Football Saturdays are the biggest parties all year and the most visible representation of our school. How can our community ensure that we don’t wind up with another Lizzy Seberg, the Notre Dame freshman who killed herself after telling campus police that a football player had attacked her?

We discussed the intersection of football and gender violence at our most recent Mizzou LSRJ meeting. There seemed to be a nexus that presented us with an awareness-raising opportunity. But we agreed that a sound strategy is crucial. Effective campus activism doesn’t preach to the choir, and it avoids the “killjoy” label. When students and alumni gather to celebrate and watch a ballgame, it’s likely that they don’t care to be reminded about their role in condoning or condemning “rape culture.”

But on the other hand, the prevalence of cases of football players committing sex crimes compels us to act.  Before the season is out, Mizzou LSRJ will do our best to infect football fandom with a zero-tolerance attitude toward sexual violence. We are brainstorming creative, provocative and inclusive ways to convey this message, and we would love your input!

mulawlsrj at missouri dot edu

Go Tigers!

Galen Sherwin, ACLU Women’s Rights Project

This entry is cross-posted from the ACLU Blog of Rights

Women should not be forced to choose between breastfeeding their babies and pursuing a legal education — right?

Wrong — at least according to the Law School Admissions Council (LSAC), the organization that administers the LSAT.

This summer, our sister organization, MomsRising, contacted us about one of their members, Ashley (she prefers that we use only her first name), a new mom who was planning to take the LSAT in October. Ashley had asked for additional break time so that she could pump breast milk for her 5 month old son during the test. (It typically takes half an hour to pump, but the LSAT only has one 15 minute break during the test). Her request was denied — when she initially called to request this accommodation, she was told she would either have to take the test under standard procedure, wean her baby in time for the October 1 test date, or opt to take the test at a later time when she was no longer breastfeeding. Seriously.

When we looked into her case, we learned that LSAC has a blanket policy of refusing such requests from women who are breastfeeding, because they are not considered “disabled.” This puts breastfeeding women at a significant disadvantage. Babies typically eat every two to three hours; if moms are away from their babies and aren’t able to empty their breasts on the same schedule, it causes pain, possible infection, and reduction in milk supply. Without sufficient time to pump, Ashley, and other moms in her position, will become increasingly uncomfortable as the test progresses—a serious distraction that could lead to a lower score, not to mention the health risks.

Because the LSAT is one of the gateways to law school admission — it is universally used by U.S. law schools as a primary admissions criterion — this policy creates a barrier to women’s entry into the entire legal profession. And law is not the only profession with this problem in its testing system. A few years ago, a woman in Massachusetts had to get a court order so that she could pump during the Medical Licensing Examination.

In a phone call yesterday, the general counsel of LSAC, Joan VanTol, was unresponsive to arguments about inequality in educational opportunity, and merely reiterated her position that LSAT was under no legal obligation to offer Ashley an accommodation. Essentially, the message LSAC appears to be sending is that it does not care whether this policy disadvantages women.

When I called Ashley and told her that LSAC was not budging, she said (with some feeling), “I’m taking that exam on Saturday, no matter what.” But she still wants to push to change the policy, because “it’s just not right.” It sounds like she’s on track to become a kick-ass lawyer.

TAKE ACTION >> Send an e-mail to the Board and CEO of LSAC, urging them to change their policy and allow nursing mothers reasonable accomodations during the LSAT! Then, post the following to Twitter, to send them a message and to spread the word to your friends:

Hey @Official_LSAT! Don’t shut nursing moms out of law school! Change your policy to accommodate breastfeeding women! http://aclu.org/LSAT

As a special bonus action, if you’re really riled up, you can go to LSAC’s Facebook page, a post the same message above there as well. Let ‘em know how you really feel!

Politicizing my seeds is the least I can do!