BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//ABF - ECPv6.15.18//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:ABF
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for ABF
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/Chicago
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0600
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:CDT
DTSTART:20230312T080000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0600
TZNAME:CST
DTSTART:20231105T070000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0600
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:CDT
DTSTART:20240310T080000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0600
TZNAME:CST
DTSTART:20241103T070000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0600
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:CDT
DTSTART:20250309T080000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0600
TZNAME:CST
DTSTART:20251102T070000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0600
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:CDT
DTSTART:20260308T080000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0600
TZNAME:CST
DTSTART:20261101T070000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20250507T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20250507T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20241029T164937Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250505T191715Z
UID:11109-1746619200-1746624600@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: Alexandra Huneeus
DESCRIPTION:This paper analyzes the arguments used to advance claims of non-human rights (or rights of nature) in Latin America\, the region where they first emerged and have undergone the most development. Most studies to date treat rights of nature as a single movement. A review of judgments\, laws\, and social movements\, however\, reveals that justifications for extending legal rights beyond humans fall into three categories. First are claims based on the species-level attributes of an animal or other creature: there is a quality of the being in question that demands a certain type of ethical treatment. Second are claims based on legal pluralism. Law in a multicultural state should give voice to the views of indigenous and tribal peoples as well as Western legal traditions. If indigenous or other peoples so request\, states should grant legal personhood and rights to natural features or “earth beings” that non-Western peoples hold as persons\, or kin\, and with whom they live in relation. Third are claims based on a new ontology: Some argue that it is time to rethink the most fundamental commitments of Western thought and\, specifically\, to give a different moral meaning to the distinction and relation between humans and non-humans\, as well as the distinction and relation between the living and non-living. Each of the three types of claims is advanced by distinct social movements and plays out in different ways in its relationship to existing laws. While the first and second can be cast as extensions of existing human rights doctrine\, the third aims to radically shift our major premises but is struggling to find legal coherence. The chapter’s main contribution is to introduce a typology of nature rights and use it to analyze the relation of nature rights and human rights. Scholarship needs to consider these differences in the argumentative structure because they have implications for many of the questions that we are asking of this emerging body of law\, including questions of effectiveness\, implementation\, and impact on other areas of law. \nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \nTo read the related paper for Dr. Huneeus’s presentation\, reach out to Sophie Kofman or Dianna Garzón. \n\nAlexandra Huneeus’ scholarship focuses on international law and human rights\, with emphasis on Latin America. Her work has appeared in the American Journal of International Law\, Harvard International Law Journal\, Law and Social Inquiry\, Yale Journal of International Law\, Leiden International Law Journal\, and by Cambridge University Press. She is Evjue Bascom Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Law\, Society and Justice at the University of Wisconsin\, Madison. She received her PhD\, JD and BA from University of California\, Berkeley\, and was a post-doc at Stanford University’s Center on Development\, Democracy and the Rule of Law. \nIn 2017\, Professor Huneeus was named to serve a ten-year term as Foreign Expert Jurist in the Colombian Jurisdicción para la Paz (JEP)\, a court created as part of the Colombian peace process. At UW\, Professor Huneeus currently serves as Director of the Center for Law\, Society and Justice. She is Co-Chair of the University of Wisconsin Human Rights Program\, which she co-founded\, and Director of the Global Legal Studies Program. She is a member of the American Society of International Law and the Law and Society Association. She has served on the Board of Editors of the American Journal of International Law\, and of Law and Social Inquiry. Previously\, she has served on the Board of Trustees of the Law and Society Association and the American Society for Comparative Law\, and as section chair for the Midwest Political Science Association (Law and Courts) and for the ASIL Midwest Interest Group on International law.
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-alexandra-huneeus/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20250430T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20250430T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20241029T164246Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250424T194651Z
UID:11100-1746014400-1746019800@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: Kamaria Porter
DESCRIPTION:Black and Latina women experience higher rates of unwanted sex\, assault\, and harassment\, yet rarely report these incidents to police or campus officials (Harris\, 2023: Slatton & Richard\, 2020; Washington\, 2001). To date\, most research on campus sexual assault reporting focuses on white\, heterosexual\, cis-gendered women at elite institutions (Brubaker et al.\, 2017; Sabina & Ho\, 2014). In this study\, Dr. Porter examined factors that influenced Black and Latina women and non-binary students’ decision to report sexual assault to police and/or university officials. Dr. Porter used a conceptual framework that combines intersectionality and the theory of legal consciousness. Instead of examining the effects of racism or sexism in isolation\, intersectionality holds that these systems of power interlock and shape each other (Crenshaw\, 1989\, 1991). Black women\, being marginalized by anti-Black racism and sexism\, experience particular forms of exclusion at the intersection of racism and sexism (P. H. Collins\, 2000; Crenshaw\, 1991). The theory of legal consciousness explores how people perceive the legal system and use concepts associated with the law to interpret everyday experiences\, particularly when they are harmed (Ewick & Silbey\, 1995; Marshall\, 2003). This presentation focuses on the 15 of 66 participants who entered a criminal or university grievance process\, exploring their evaluation of reporting processes based on interactions with police\, complaint officers\, the legal system\, and Title IX policy procedures. This research has implications for policy implementation and exploring legal cynicism among university student survivors.  \nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \n\nKamaria B. Porter\, PhD. (she/her) joined the Office of the Ombudsperson as Associate Ombudsperson in July 2024. Prior to joining Northwestern University\, Kamaria served as an Assistant Professor of Higher Education at Penn State University. There she taught a range of courses related to higher education\, including administration and organizational theory\, history and critical issues in higher education\, and research methods. Kamaria’s research broadly explores inequities in higher education\, focusing on faculty experiences on the tenure track\, graduate student success in STEM departments\, and Title IX policy. She earned her PhD in Higher Education at the University of Michigan. While there\, she managed a research lab on university policy responses to sexual harassment and assault\, investigated practices to prevent harassment in academic units\, and organized interdisciplinary learning and mental health programming for graduate students.
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-kamaria-porter/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20250423T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20250423T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20241107T194600Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250307T214519Z
UID:11168-1745409600-1745415000@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: Shitong Qiao
DESCRIPTION:Based on six-year fieldwork across China including over 200 in-depth interviews\, this book provides an ethnographic account of how hundreds of millions of Chinese homeowners practice democracy in and beyond their condominium complexes. Using interviews\, survey data\, and a comprehensive examination of laws\, policies and judicial decisions\, this book also examines how the party-state in China responds to the risks and benefits brought by neighborhood democratization. Moreover\, this book provides a framework to analyze different approaches to the authoritarian dilemma facing neighborhood democratization which may increase the regime’s legitimacy and expose it to the challenge of independent organizations at the same time. Lastly\, this book identifies conditions under which neighborhood democratization can succeed. \nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \n\nShitong Qiao is Professor of Law and the Ken Young-Gak Yun and Jinah Park Yun Research Scholar at Duke Law School. He also holds the title of Honorary Professor at the University of Hong Kong and is a core faculty member of the Asia/Pacific Studies Institute at Duke University. He was previously a tenured professor at the University of Hong Kong\, a Law and Public Affairs (LAPA) fellow at Princeton University\, and the inaugural Jerome A. Cohen Visiting Professor of Law at NYU. \nHe is primarily interested in the relationship between political power\, law\, and private ordering. His first monograph\, Chinese Small Property: The Co-Evolution of Law and Social Norms (Cambridge University Press\, 2017)\, investigates how a real estate economy took off without legal titles. His second monograph\, The Authoritarian Commons: Neighborhood Democratization in Urban China (Cambridge University Press\, forthcoming 2025)\, provides an ethnographic account of how hundreds of millions of Chinese homeowners practice democracy in and beyond their condominium complexes\, within and beyond the boundaries of law. \nProfessor Qiao has also published numerous articles in top American and Chinese law journals. In addition\, he has served as an expert witness on the Chinese property regime in China\, Canada\, and the U.S. He holds degrees from Wuhan University (LL.B.)\, Peking University (MPhil)\, and Yale University (LL.M.\, J.S.D.). \n 
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-shitong-qiao/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20250416T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20250416T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20241028T144319Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250410T184431Z
UID:11050-1744804800-1744810200@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: Jerry Kang
DESCRIPTION:At a time when the Right attacks implicit bias as liberal propaganda and some on the Left dismiss it as a distraction from structural racism\, this Article [to be discussed] offers a different take: implicit bias actually helps us see and respond to structural racism. It is a powerful diagnostic and prescriptive tool. Kang and Carbado argue that the supposed tension between individual and structural accounts of racial inequality is misguided. Implicit bias\, Kang and Carbado contend\, both reflects and reinforces structural racism. More than that\, implicit bias education—when done right—can catalyze structural reform. \nPart I begins with what most readers already know about implicit bias but then adds a surprising twist: when we aggregate individual bias scores across cities\, counties\, and states\, we discover striking correlations with racial disparities in everything from health outcomes to police violence. This recent “structuralizing” of implicit bias data has escaped the attention of legal academics. \nPart II tackles head-on the Left’s concern that implicit bias isn’t “structural enough.” Kang and Carbado agree that structural forces are primary and introduce the concept of “racial sedimentation” to make that point clear. However\, they push back against the puzzling claim that implicit bias frameworks reinforce the “intentional discrimination” mindset that Critical Race Theory has long criticized and show that just the opposite is true. \nPart III showcases how implicit bias education can advance structural reform in three important domains. Theoretically\, it provides empirical support for Critical Race Theory’s claim that race is socially constructed. Practically\, through what Kang and Carbado call the “Quadrants of Responsibility” framework\, it motivates law firms to tackle structural barriers they’d otherwise write off as beyond their institutional responsibility and control. And doctrinally\, it nudges courts to think more structurally about everything from capital punishment to jury selection. Kang and Carbado think this matters. By showing how implicit bias operates as both symptom and cause of structural racism\, they offer a new way to understand—and do something about—America’s enduring racial hierarchy. \nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \nTo read the related paper for Professor Kang’s presentation\, reach out to Sophie Kofman or Dianna Garzón. \n\nJerry Kang is the Ralph and Shirley Shapiro Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA. He graduated magna cum laude from both Harvard College (physics) and Harvard Law School\, where he was a supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review. After clerking for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals\, he started his professorship at UCLA in 1995. A leading scholar on implicit bias\, critical race studies\, and communications law\, Professor Kang collaborates broadly across disciplines and industries on scholarly\, educational\, and advocacy projects. An inspiring teacher\, he has received UCLA’s highest recognition: the Eby Art of Teaching Distinguished Teaching Award. During 2015-20\, he served as the UCLA’s Founding Vice Chancellor for Equity\, Diversity and Inclusion.
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-jerry-kang/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20250409T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20250409T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20241120T152413Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250401T142523Z
UID:11277-1744200000-1744205400@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: Taisu Zhang
DESCRIPTION:This article argues that legal professions\, regardless of socioeconomic\, political\, cultural\, or ideological context\, naturally drift towards jurisprudential internalism. Zhang defines “legal internalism” as a behavioral paradigm in which legal actors treat legal rules as normative\, epistemologically self-contained\, and systemically coherent. Such a paradigm is deeply controversial within the legal academy: formalists embrace it as objectively “correct\,” whereas realists reject it as empirically false and conceptually incoherent. \nRegardless of what scholars believe\, he argues—first at the level of behavioral theory\, then through empirical illustration—that internalism naturally appeals to lawyers and judges due to the socioeconomic incentive structures they face. Once socially accepted\, internalism greatly increases the legal knowledge gap between specialists and non-specialists\, rendering legal comprehension easier for trained lawyers and but more difficult for laymen. This enhances the legal profession’s functional dominance over legal interpretation\, which in turn enhances its prestige\, sociopolitical stature\, and earning power. As a result\, legal professionals will tend to behaviorally embrace internalism regardless of its intellectual merits. Legal scholars\, in contrast\, have different incentive structures that significantly dilute the appeal of internalism. \nThese are universalist theoretical claims that should apply in nearly every socioeconomic and political context. Although a full empirical proof is clearly impossible in a single article\, we demonstrate their applicability to six of the world’s most important legal systems: the United States\, China\, Germany\, England\, Japan\, and India. In all six countries\, which otherwise diverge dramatically in wealth\, size\, politics\, culture\, and institutions\, legal professionals behaviorally drift towards internalism over time. They do so despite some significant political and intellectual obstacles\, and often in an explicitly self-interested manner. In contrast\, legal scholars in several of these countries are visibly more skeptical towards internalism. \nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \n\nTaisu Zhang is a Professor of Law at Yale Law School and works on comparative legal and economic history\, private law theory\, and contemporary Chinese law and politics. He is the author of two books\, The Ideological Foundations of Qing Taxation: Belief Systems\, Politics\, and Institutions (Cambridge University Press\, 2023)\, and The Laws and Economics of Confucianism: Kinship and Property in Pre-Industrial China and England (Cambridge University Press\, 2017). These are the first two entries in a planned trilogy of books on the institutional and cultural origins of early modern economic divergence. He is currently writing two other books: the first\, The Authoritarian Functions of Law (And Their Application to Contemporary China)\, is under contract with Harvard University Press and examines the political and socioeconomic logic of legalization in China. The second\, tentatively titled The Cultural-Legal Origins of Economic Divergence\, completes the trilogy mentioned above. Zhang’s academic articles and essays have recently appeared in journals such as the Journal of Legal Studies\, the Journal of Legal Analysis\, the Yale Law Journal\, and the Harvard Law Review. His work has won awards and prizes from a number of academic organizations. \nZhang is a Global Faculty member at Peking University Law School and holds secondary appointments at Yale in the History Department and the Jackson School. He has also taught at the Duke University School of Law\, the University of Hong Kong\, Brown University\, and the Tsinghua University School of Law. He serves as co-editor of Studies in Legal History\, the book series of the American Society for Legal History (published by Cambridge University Press). He is a regular commentator on law and politics in media outlets\, in both English and Chinese.
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-taisu-zhang/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20250402T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20250402T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20241028T144302Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250328T205701Z
UID:11047-1743595200-1743600600@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: Tristin Green
DESCRIPTION:In February 2025\, the Trump Department of Education issued a Dear Colleague letter to universities and K-12 schools in which it insisted that teachings that trigger feelings of guilt or “moral burden” because of race amount to discrimination by “deny[ing] students the ability to participate fully in the life of a school.” Several years earlier\, the Executive Office of the President under then-president Donald Trump issued a letter directing all federal agencies to “cease and desist” in their workplaces from funding diversity training sessions that teach “divisive concepts\,” including any trainings “suggesting that any individuals should feel discomfort\, guilt\, anguish\, or any other form of psychological stress on account of his or her race.” The common idea across these directives is that teaching about racial bias\, systemic racism\, racial history\, or injustice amounts to discrimination against whites solely because it imposes harms related to race in the form of psychological stress or emotional anguish. Feeling badly about race\, in other words\, renders the teachings discriminatory without any further inquiry. \nThese directives build from a larger shift in antidiscrimination law over the past several decades toward measuring individual harm in determining whether discrimination occurred. The shift\, what Tristin Green calls “centering personal offense\,” is particularly evident in the area of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Judges during this time began to see and emphasize individual\, psychological harm as a principal discrimination harm and at the same time to raise concerns about claims for mere trifles\, creating legal doctrines designed to protect employers from liability through judgments about individuals’ harms where no such doctrines existed before. \nAs the anti-DEI directives so starkly illustrate\, centering personal offense in antidiscrimination law deforms and decontextualizes the discrimination inquiry by burying normative determinations in individualized measurements of harm. In this way\, it dovetails with (though is distinct from) calls for formal equality and colorblindness. What’s more\, once measuring harm is part of the discrimination inquiry\, it appears natural for judges to weigh individual harms against each other in deciding whether discrimination took place: One individual’s judicially declared affront to dignity is put up against another individual’s judicially declared much ado about nothing. \nIn this project\, Tristin Green exposes the turn in antidiscrimination law toward centering personal offense (a turn that has been implicitly embraced by progressives and conservatives alike) and illustrates why it is problematic. Looking to the future\, she then shows how a seemingly narrow recent Supreme Court decision\, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis\, can be understood to upend it. With antidiscrimination law under attack\, re-centering institutions and normative debates about what amounts to discrimination and why is more crucial than ever. \nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \n\nTristin Green is a sociolegal scholar interested in the role of institutions—such as workplaces\, educational systems\, and legal frameworks—in perpetuating discrimination. Her work critically examines how prevailing ideologies about discrimination shape legal doctrines and\, in turn\, influence the potential for law to effect substantive and meaningful social change. Her work pushes against narrow frames of discrimination to instead emphasize institutional and organizational decisions\, especially as they affect the context for day-to-day relations. \nProfessor Green is the author of dozens of scholarly journal articles and book chapters\, as well as two books: Racial Emotion at Work: Dismantling Discrimination and Building Racial Justice in the Workplace (University of California Press\, 2023) and Discrimination Laundering: The Rise of Organizational Innocence and the Crisis of Equal Opportunity Law (Cambridge University Press\, 2017).
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-tristan-green/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20250312T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20250312T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20241028T144246Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250307T215340Z
UID:11044-1741780800-1741786200@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: Ji Li
DESCRIPTION:Immigrant lawyers represent a rapidly growing yet understudied segment of the U.S. legal profession. This article examines the career trajectories of Chinese immigrant lawyers\, the largest ethnic subgroup within this population\, through a dual institutional perspective that situates their professional experiences within both home-state and host-state institutional contexts. Applying the forms of capital framework\, this study empirically analyzes how these lawyers navigate the devaluation of their human and cultural capital\, limited access to social capital\, and systemic biases within the American legal market. Despite these structural barriers\, Chinese immigrant lawyers exercise considerable adaptive agency by specializing in China-related legal work\, a strategy that enables them to reconfigure and mobilize their capital in ways that mitigate structural disadvantages. By shifting the analytical focus beyond a U.S.-centric lens\, this study advances socio-legal scholarship by proposing a transnational approach that captures both institutional constraints and agentic responses shaping immigrant lawyers’ careers. More broadly\, it contributes to ongoing debates on the legal profession\, immigrant incorporation\, and first-generation Asian American professionals\, while extending the application of the forms of capital framework to transnational legal careers. \nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \n\nProfessor Li joined UCI Law in July 2019 as the John S. and Marilyn Long Professor of U.S.-China Business and Law. Prior to this appointment\, he was a Professor of Law and a Zhuang Zhou Scholar at Rutgers University\, where he also served as a member of the Associate Faculty of the Division of Global Affairs. \n\n\nProfessor Li received his Ph.D. in political science from Northwestern University and his J.D. from Yale Law School\, where he was an Olin Fellow in Law\, Economics\, and Public Policy. After law school\, he worked for several years at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP in New York. \n\n\nProfessor Li’s teaching and scholarship cover a broad range of topics\, including Chinese law and politics\, international business transactions\, contracts\, comparative law\, and empirical legal studies. He has published two books with Cambridge University Press: Negotiating Legality (2024) and Clash of Capitalisms (2018)\, both of which examine how Chinese multinational companies\, including those owned by the Chinese state\, adapt to U.S. legal and regulatory institutions. During the 2018-2019 academic year\, Professor Li was in residence at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. He is currently working on two book projects that investigate the interactions between China and the international legal order\, as well as the ways transnational legal actors are coping with the U.S.-China geopolitical rivalry. \n\n 
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-ji-li/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20250305T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20250305T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20250205T153751Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250218T194405Z
UID:11935-1741176000-1741181400@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: Hila Keren
DESCRIPTION:Statutory bans on providing necessary treatments to trans minors are already in place in about half of the nation’s states. Although many courts have found such treatment bans unconstitutional\, the Sixth Circuit affirmed bans enacted by Tennessee and Kentucky in L.W. v. Skrmetti. The decision rejected two separate constitutional challenges under the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. However\, when the challengers petitioned for the Supreme Court’s review\, the Court only agreed to consider the argument—made by the Government as an intervening plaintiff—that the treatment bans discriminate on the basis of sex and transgender status in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. It took no action on the private plaintiffs’ petitions—minors\, parents\, and doctors—who argued that the treatment bans not only discriminate but also infringe on parental rights in violation of the Due Process Clause. \nThis Article is the first to analyze the adverse ramifications of such a selective review of the treatment bans. It argues that deciding Skrmetti without considering parental rights is a flawed way to adjudicate the constitutionality of the bans. Far from being merely a procedural issue\, narrow consideration stands to skew the substantive outcome of the litigation\, allowing the bans to survive despite their striking conflict with the Constitution. This is a possible result not due to a weakness of the legal arguments regarding discrimination: The bans explicitly target transgender adolescents\, preventing only them from undergoing treatments that cisgender minors are permitted to receive. Rather\, as this Article shows\, it is the conservative orientation of the Court that makes the invalidation of the bans under the Equal Protection Clause an unlikely result. \nYet\, this Article offers more than an analysis of how selective consideration begets injustice. Because it acknowledges that treating trans youth touches ideological nerves that impact adjudication\, it takes on an original task: uncovering arguments that would justify invalidating the bans outside of the liberal framework. By uniquely examining the issue from a conservative perspective\, this Article aspires to help persuade enough Republican appointees on the Court that the treatment bans are unconstitutional for reasons independent of their discriminatory intent and content. It canvasses multiple resources to show how conservatives are less united with regard to state intrusion into parental rights than they are in their resistance to gender identity issues. Based on this study\, the Article argues that the main path to saving minors’ access to gender-affirming care is to find common ground between liberals and some conservatives on the Court around the bans’ impact on the fundamental rights of parents to direct the upbringing\, including healthcare needs\, of their children free of government intervention. \nDelving even deeper in search of such a coalition\, this Article highlights conflicting priorities on the right side of the political map\, analyzing how the treatment bans contradict key principles of the libertarian and neoliberal strands within the conservative movement. This nuanced understanding might persuade some Justices\, who are more committed to limiting state power than to promoting religious values\, to be more skeptical of the bans and join their liberal colleagues in invalidating them as a display of unprecedented government overreach. \nTherefore\, there might currently be a narrow window of opportunity to invalidate the bans and resume trans minors’ access to the treatments their doctors advise and their parents agree they need. This insight should lead the Court to broaden its review and consider the threat to parental rights before deciding Skrmetti. Yet\, if this does not transpire due to excessive partisanship\, the Article’s long-term contribution is identifying—for future litigation—how the treatment bans clash not only with trans rights but also with conservative principles. As this Article shows\, due care for all minors\, regardless of their gender identity\, could and should be within reach even in a conservative Court. \nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \n\nHila Keren brings a unique global perspective on contracts and business law to the classroom\, having studied\, taught and practiced law in Israel for more than two decades. She served on the Faculty of Law of her alma mater\, the Hebrew University in Jerusalem\, from 2005 until her appointment to Southwestern in Fall 2010. At Hebrew University\, she taught basic and advanced courses in contracts as an Assistant Professor of Law and earned the Outstanding Teaching Award. In 2006\, Professor Keren was elected by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities to be a member of its Young Researchers’ Forum. Professor Keren was appointed Associate Dean for Research in 2019. \nAt Southwestern\, Dean Keren teaches in the areas of contracts and business law. In addition to earning her LL.B. and Ph.D. degrees in Israel\, Dean Keren completed two years of post-doctoral studies at the Center for the Study of Law and Society at the University of California\, Berkeley in 2005. During her studies\, she was awarded the Birk Foundation Award for Distinguished Research in the Field of Law\, the Alice Shalvi Scholarship for Original Feminist Legal Studies\, the Rector’s Prize for Outstanding Doctoral Students and the Golda Meir Fellowship. She returned to UC Berkeley in 2007-2008 to teach Contracts and Challenges to Legal Rationality as a Visiting Professor. \n 
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-hila-keren/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20250226T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20250226T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20241029T164645Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250224T201319Z
UID:11106-1740571200-1740576600@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: Calvin John Smiley
DESCRIPTION:Reentry after release from incarceration is often presented as a story of redemption. Unfortunately\, this is not the reality. Those being released must navigate the reentry process with diminished legal rights and amplified social stigmas\, in a journey that is often confusing\, complex\, and precarious. Making use of life-history interviews\, focus groups\, and ethnographic fieldwork with low-income urban residents of color\, primarily Black men\, Calvin John Smiley finds that reentry requires the recently released to negotiate a web of disjointed and often contradictory systems that serve as an extension of the carceral system. No longer behind bars but not fully free\, the recently released navigate a state of limbo that deprives them of opportunity and support while leaving them locked in a cycle of perpetual punishment. Warning of the dangers of reformist efforts that only serve to further entrench carceral systems\, this book advocates for abolitionist solutions rooted in the visions of the people most affected. \nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \nTo read the related paper for Dr. Smiley’s presentation\, reach out to Sophie Kofman or Dianna Garzón. \n\nCalvin John Smiley received his PhD from The Graduate Center-CUNY in 2014. His work focuses on issues related to race\, inequality\, and social justice. More specifically\, as a critical sociologist and criminologist\, he has studied mass incarceration and prisoner reentry\, particularly for urban inhabitants. \nSmiley has been published in a number of academic peer-reviewed journals and book chapters. In addition\, his research has been cited in notable publications such as The Washington Post and Le Monde (France). He is the co-editor of Prisoner Reentry in the 21st Century: Critical Perspectives of Returning Home published by Routledge Press. Finally\, Smiley is working on a book-length manuscript on his work on prisoner reentry\, specifically examining many of the intricacies and complications of prisoner reentry and how men and women navigate and negotiate reentry space\, moving from confinement to community\, with diminished legal rights and amplified social stigmas. \nExplore Dr. Smiley’s research\, teaching\, and publications on his website. \n 
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-calvin-john-smiley/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20250219T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20250219T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20241028T144129Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250219T002114Z
UID:11036-1739966400-1739971800@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: Rabiat Akande
DESCRIPTION:The final years of British imperial rule in Northern Nigeria witnessed efforts to source appropriate models of legal modernization from the Muslim world. The models afloat in constitutional discourse\, those of Libya\, Sudan\, Pakistan\, and Egypt\, were held up by respective proponents as ideal for resolving the long-fraught question of the relationship between Islam and public law in a modern state. Yet\, the evocations of these foreign models were idealized imaginaries; by framing these models as settled facts\, the Northern Nigerian evocations flattened the constitutional experience of these states and obscured unfolding struggles over the nature of legal modernity. Against the backdrop of contestations between juristic and political elites\, colonial officials\, and other actors\, this paper chronicles the outsourcing of Northern Nigeria’s legal modernization to foreign imaginaries. Even as the Northern Nigerian legal borrowing debate fielded competing visions of decolonization and modernization\, that discourse limited the realm of possibilities to an uncritical and\, in the end\, imaginary copying from postcolonial jurisdictions. The ultimate consequence was the trumping of juristic power by political authority and the foreclosure of emancipatory possibilities for the future of law. \nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \n\nRabiat Akande (she/her) joined the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law in 2024. She works in the fields of legal history\, law and religion\, constitutional and comparative constitutional law\, Islamic law\, international law\, and (post)colonial African law and society. \nProfessor Akande is the author of Entangled Domains: Empire\, Law\, and Religion in Northern Nigeria (Cambridge University Press: 2023). Her work has also appeared in the American Journal of International Law\, the Journal of Law and Religion\, Law and History Review\, the Supreme Court Review\, and in volumes by Cambridge University Press\, University of Toronto Press\, and University of Virginia Press. Currently\, she is co-editing an encyclopedia of law and religion (Elgar Publishing: under contract)\, an African international law reader\, and a volume on African international legal history. She is also at work on a book exploring Malcolm X’s intellectual legacy titled Malcolm X\, Black Globalism\, and the Human Rights Critique of Imperialism. \nProfessor Akande chairs the international legal history project at the African Institute of International Law in Arusha with the support of the African Union and the Gerda Henkel Foundation\, among other institutions. \n 
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-rabiat-akande/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20250205T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20250205T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20241210T163553Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250205T154010Z
UID:11358-1738756800-1738762200@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: Aaron Pitluck
DESCRIPTION:In the United States and in much of the world\, our lives are directly or indirectly dependent on financial markets to access key resources such as an automobile or home\, to move money into the future so that we can stop working before we die\, and to access fundamental needs such as healthcare and an education. Unfortunately\, even highly regulated financial markets are saturated with financial professionals’ exploitation of information and power asymmetries\, conflicts of interest\, and financial instruments designed with negative externalities. Moreover\, many financial markets are lightly regulated and rely on self-regulation. In an aspiringly democratic society\, how can outside critics—such as social movements\, policy makers\, politicians\, academics\, and even regulators—understand financial markets and instruments sufficiently to morally and normatively evaluate them? Even more challenging\, how can outsiders use their hard-won understanding to advocate for and create normatively and morally better forms of finance\, particularly when the social change may not be in financial insiders’ short-term interest? To explore questions such as these\, Dr. Pitluck will describe his research in global Islamic investment banks in Malaysia to understand how moral critics such as Shariah scholars are engaging with financial expert communities and conducting a deep structural change of financial markets. The presentation will outline how this organizational and institutional structure allows Shariah scholars to induce an understanding of what Islamic finance is and to pragmatically co-produce with investment bankers a movement towards this moral and normative vision.\n\nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org. \n\n\nAaron Z. Pitluck (he/him) is a Professor of Sociology at Illinois State University and currently serves on the Executive Committee of the International Sociological Association. \nDrawing on economic sociology\, anthropology\, and cultural analysis\, his research interests center on financial actors\, organizations\, markets\, and institutions\, particularly in the Global South. \nWhile at the ABF\, he is writing an interdisciplinary book describing how investment bankers\, Shariah scholars\, and the state are co-producing Islamic banking and finance in Malaysia. By investigating this case study\, the book seeks to distinguish empowering from exploitative finance and to contribute to understanding how to alter the trajectory of finance towards the former. 
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-aaron-pitluck/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20250129T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20250129T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20250107T155832Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250124T174013Z
UID:11487-1738152000-1738157400@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: Carol Heimer
DESCRIPTION:Regulators have long worried about how much to trust those they regulate. Trust can be efficient\, allowing regulators to expend fewer resources on expensive\, labor-intensive inspections. But trust also carries substantial risks. A regulator’s vote of confidence can open the door for shirking\, inappropriate bending of rules\, or even misrepresentation and deceit. For this reason\, many regulatory systems make trust contingent on verification\, as the Russian proverb advises.\nThis imperative to limit trust often leads to the creation and institutionalization of obligations for layered verification of one component after another. Such regulatory regimes create considerable work both for regulated entities\, who must demonstrate that they have followed the rules\, and for regulators\, who must verify compliance.\nBut as accountability and verification regimes attempt to solve one set of problems — those arising from too fully trusting regulated entities’ compliance claims — these regimes risk creating fresh problems. Building on organizational research on “routine dynamics\,” the article shows how regulatory regimes with detailed rules and elaborate verification routines may inadvertently reinscribe patterns of privilege and disadvantage as regulators enforce rules and guidelines that inevitably have biases built into them. The article also shows how the official\, scripted universalism of regulatory stances can be diminished or magnified by the unscripted interactional stances of monitors and inspectors.\nDrawing on research conducted in HIV clinics in the US\, Thailand\, South Africa\, and Uganda\, the article looks at regulatory encounters in healthcare and biomedical research. The regime of institutionalized skepticism\, developed for oversight of clinical research\, assumes that it is necessary to cast a distrustful eye on each stage of the research process. Yet it turns out that institutionalized skepticism is not always implemented or experienced the same way. Crucially\, it is more likely to be coupled with disrespect in poorer countries than richer ones.\n\nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \n\nCarol A. Heimer is Professor Emerita of Sociology at Northwestern University and Research Professor at the American Bar Foundation. She received her BA from Reed College and her PhD from the University of Chicago. Heimer has written on risk and insurance (Reactive Risk and Rational Action)\, organization theory (Organization Theory and Project Management\, co-authored with Stinchcombe)\, the sociology of law and the sociology of medicine (For the Sake of the Children\, co-authored with Staffen\, winner of both the theory and medical sociology prizes of the American Sociological Association). A recipient of the Ver Steeg Award for graduate teaching\, she usually teaches courses on law\, medicine\, and qualitative methods\, with occasional forays in to topics such as the sociology of moral experience. She spent 2007-08 as a Visiting Fellow in the Program in Law and Public Affairs at Princeton. Heimer is currently writing a book from her NSF-funded comparative study of the role of law in medicine. In recent years\, American medicine has been “legalized” as relatively informal regulation by professional peers has been supplanted by an increasingly rule-based system. By no means confined to the US\, this rule-based regulation has diffused widely\, sometimes freely adopted by medical workers eager for the legitimacy conferred by American medical science\, at other times imposed on foreign scientific colleagues by American funding agencies and research organizations. The Legal Transformation of Medicine will be grounded in ethnographic work and interviews on the use of rules (broadly conceived) in HIV/AIDS clinics in the US\, Uganda\, South Africa\, and Thailand.
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-carol-heimer/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20250122T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20250122T130000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20241210T163217Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250117T211555Z
UID:11356-1737547200-1737550800@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: John Eason
DESCRIPTION:During the prison boom—from 1970 to 2000 when facilities tripled across the US\, prisons were more likely to be constructed in rural towns in the South with higher rates of poverty\, and Black and Latino residents. By examining the period we call the prison “bust”—between 2000-2023–when prison closures eclipsed openings\, we reveal how prison closures impact schools and racial equity across rural communities. Using Community Engaged Methods (CEM) we demonstrate multiple adverse effects of prison closure on rural communities of color including school closures. We argue that these findings implore us to find responsible ways of curbing demand to close prisons and reduce harm to rural communities of color. We assert this move from prison abolition as advocacy to prison abolition as policy will bear more fruit in reducing our overreliance on mass incarceration.\n\nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org. \n\n\nJohn M. Eason (he/him) is the Watson Family University Associate Professor of Sociology and International and Public Affairs at Brown University. He also works as a Senior Fellow at the Justice Policy Center/Office of Race and Equity Research at the Urban Institute. \nHe holds a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Chicago. Eason\, a native of Evanston\, Illinois\, received a bachelor’s degree in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and a M.P.P. from the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago. \nBefore entering graduate school\, Eason was a church-based community organizer focused on housing and criminal justice issues. He also served as a political organizer for then-Illinois State Senator Barack Obama. \nEason’s research interests challenge existing models and develop new theories of community\, health\, race\, punishment and rural/urban processes in several ways. First\, by tracing the emergence of the rural ghetto\, he establishes a new conceptual model of rural neighborhoods. Next\, by demonstrating the function of the ghetto in rural communities\, he extends concentrated disadvantage from urban to rural community process. These relationships are explored through his book\, “Big House on the Prairie: Rise of the Rural Ghetto and Prison Proliferation” (University of Chicago Press\, 2017).
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-john-eason/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20250115T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20250115T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20241028T144048Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250106T154904Z
UID:11029-1736942400-1736947800@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: Samuel Fury Childs Daly
DESCRIPTION:Beginning in the 1960s\, many African governments were taken over by their armies. “The Soldier’s Creed” describes how law and militarism intersected in postcolonial Africa. In Nigeria and other former British colonies\, military officers believed they could remake their countries in the image of an army. Soldiers tried to condition civilians to think like they did—and when that failed they tried to beat the bad habits out of them by force. Military-style discipline became a political philosophy\, and some soldiers came to believe that making Africa into a vast open-air barracks was what would make it truly “free.” In Nigeria and elsewhere\, soldiers saw judges as partners in their attempts to “discipline” their countries\, but law wasn’t the disciplinary tool they thought it was. Civilians could turn law back on them\, they discovered\, and only some judges shared their world-making aspirations. Using an original collection of legal records\, documents\, and memoirs\, Samuel Fury Childs Daly shows how law facilitated militarism and\, at times\, worked against it. \n\n\nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \n\n\n\nSamuel Fury Childs Daly is an Associate Professor of History at the University of Chicago’s Department of History. Professor Daly writes about law\, warfare\, and the politics of military regimes. Most of his work describes the history of Africa since independence. He asks how soldiers and judges think: how do military dictatorships use law\, and how do judiciaries check their powers – or enable them? He also studies what warfare does to legal systems. Armed conflict degrades normative orders\, and sometimes it creates new ones. How do people make order and resolve disputes in wartime? His first book\, A History of the Republic of Biafra: Law\, Crime\, and the Nigerian Civil War (Cambridge University Press\, 2020)\, connects the Nigerian Civil War to the fraud and violent crime that wracked Nigeria in its wake. Using an original body of legal records from the secessionist Republic of Biafra\, it traces how technologies\, survival practices\, and moral codes that emerged during the fighting lasted long after the war was over. The line between martial violence and violent crime can blur on the battlefield\, and once that line is gone it is hard to redraw it. \nHe is currently conducting research for two projects – a global history of military desertion\, and a book about military imposters and role-players. His work has been published in venues including Past & Present\, Comparative Studies in Society and History\, and the Los Angeles Review of Books. He holds a PhD in History from Columbia University\, an MPhil from the University of Cambridge\, and an MA from the School of Oriental and African Studies\, University of London. He previously taught at Duke University. \n 
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-samuel-fury-childs-daly/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20241204T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20241204T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20240709T163120Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20241119T153054Z
UID:10338-1733313600-1733319000@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: Swethaa S. Ballakrishnen
DESCRIPTION:Using 60 ethnographic interviews with a range of minority law students and early career legal professionals\, this Article illuminates the cruciality of eCRT tools to understand the experience of individual deviance and the usefulness of a queer theory lens in aiding such an effort. Analysis from these narrative data show that students with different kinds of peripheral identities experience professional spaces in many uniquely different ways but that narratives across minority categories (primarily differentiated by race\, gender identity\, religion\, and disability) also overlapped in important ways. Particularly\, the data show a clear pattern among these differently peripheral actors of what I call “blasé” dismissal and denial of discrimination. Unlike microaggressions which might have resonance in common cultural parlance as an operationalization of structural violence\, what distinguishes blasé discrimination\, I argue\, is the ordinariness of the act in common interactional parlance alongside its relative unlikeliness to be seen as problematic when confronted. It is this possibility of defense and even justification in the face of being questioned about the violence that makes blasé discrimination and its ambiguous parameters worthy of our attention in identity jurisprudence. This exploration of the blasé response to discrimination sheds light – borrowing from queer theory – on the opportunities available for theory building when difference is analyzed across narrative to focus on the commonalities of deviance across sub-categories of assumed identity. In turn\, it offers a framework for considering what I am framing as the “QuEer-CRT” approach for law and society scholarship. \nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \n\nSwethaa S. Ballakrishnen (they/them) is a socio-legal scholar whose research examines the intersections between law\, globalization and stratification from a critical feminist and global south perspective. Particularly\, across a range of sites and different levels of analysis\, their work interrogates how law and legal institutions create\, continue\, and counter different kinds of socio-economic inequalities.  \nScholarship from Professor Ballakrishnen’s research projects has appeared in\, among other journals\, Law and Society Review\, Law and Social Inquiry\, Fordham Law Review\, International Journal of the Legal Profession\, and the Journal of Professions and Organization. Their first book\, Accidental Feminism (Princeton University Press: 2021)\, unpacks the case of unintentional gender parity among India’s elite legal professionals; a second book Invisible Institutions (Hart Publishing: 2021\, ed. with Sara Dezalay) brings together cross-subjective perspectives on legal globalization; and a third book\, Gender Regimes and the Politics of Privacy (Zubaan Books\, with Kalpana Kannabiran) investigates the gendered legacies of India’s privacy jurisprudence. These strains of research have received a range of honors and awards\, including from the National Science Foundation\, the American Sociological Association\, and the Law and Society Association; and in 2022\, Ballakrishnen was awarded the campus-wide UCI Distinguished Early-Career Award for Research. You can read more about their research praxis and commitments here.  \nAlongside this scholarly output\, Professor Ballakrishnen’s research has been featured in a range of professional and popular media including Harvard Business Review\, Stanford News Report\, Above the Law\, Bloomberg Law\, Quartz\, Law School Transparency Radio\, The Practice\, New Books Network\, and WPR. They have presented research at over 100 conferences worldwide\, delivered over 50 invited talks in a range of academic and professional settings\, and their legal opinions on family and financial laws have been cited by the Probate and Family Court of Massachusetts and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit respectively.  \nProfessor Ballakrishnen is committed to building and serving socio-legal communities\, especially ones that focus on critical questions concerning legal education and the profession. At UCI\, they co-run the Center for Empirical Research on the Legal Profession\, the Socio-Legal Studies Workshop\, and the Law\, Society\, and Culture Emphasis. In addition\, beyond UCI\, they are affiliated faculty at the Harvard Law School Center on the Legal Profession\, on the board of trustees of the Law and Society Association (LSA) and the ISA Research Committee on Sociology of Law\, a co-founder of the LSA Collaborative Research Network on Legal Education\, and on the Executive Committee of the AALS Section on Empirical Study of Legal Education and the Legal Profession. In 2017-18\, they were the AccessLex Visiting Scholar on Legal Education at the American Bar Foundation. In 2020\, Professor Ballakrishnen was named a AALS Teacher of the Year.  \nFor over a decade before entering academia full-time\, Professor Ballakrishnen was a legal intern to Hon’ble Justice Arijit Pasayat of the Supreme Court of India\, an international banking associate in Mumbai\, and an external consultant for cross-border litigation financing in New York City.  \n 
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-swethaa-s-ballakrishnen/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20241023T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20241023T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20240709T162252Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20241017T181450Z
UID:10332-1729684800-1729690200@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: Ke Li
DESCRIPTION:Drawing on archival and ethnographic research\, this talk presents a case study of legal workers in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Empirically\, it marks the key moments in the PRC’s development of a legal services industry during the reform era. It does so by tracing how a particular group of law practitioners\, known as basic-level legal workers\, rose to prominence in the socialist era and then fell from favor in the new millennium. The fact that the PRC’s top decision-makers have struggled to transform the group of practitioners and that they have mishandled attempts to harness a burgeoning services industry testifies to the limits of authoritarian regimes—and especially the challenges in instrumentalizing law\, legal professions\, and judicial institutions. Theoretically speaking\, this case study foregrounds an understudied theme in the literature. True\, legality has become an integral part of autocrats’ ruling methodologies in many parts of the world. Their endeavors to deploy legal techniques and personnel to resolve emerging problems in ruling\, however\, do not always deliver. Thus\, it is crucial for researchers to heed—and explicate—when and why autocrats do not always get what they want.\n  \nTo read the related paper for Dr. Li’s presentation\, reach out to Sophie Kofman or Dianna Garzón. \n\n\nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \n\nKe Li (she/her) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the John Jay College of the City University of New York. Her research focuses on law and society\, knowledge practices\, and gender politics in contemporary China. In a decade or so\, she has had articles published in the Law & Society Review\, Law & Policy\, and Sociological Forum. Her book\, Marriage Unbound: State Law\, Power\, and Inequality in Contemporary China\, was published by Stanford University Press in 2022.   \nDrawing on extensive archival and ethnographic data\, Marriage Unbound shows how women’s legal mobilization and rights contention can forge new ground for our understanding of law and politics\, as well as power and inequality\, in an authoritarian context. In 2023\, this book received several awards\, including Herbert Jacob Book Prize for the best book on law and society and Victoria Schuck Award for the best book on women and politics.  \nIn recent years\, she has branched out into new research areas. In one project\, she examines LGBTQ activism and impact litigation in Chinese society; and\, in a related project\, studies how state- and society-sponsored knowledge moves come to shape judicial decision-making\, respectively. Together\, these two inquiries\, she hopes\, will allow her to connect several adjacent research areas: law and society\, the sociology of knowledge\, and science and technology studies. 
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-ke-li/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20241016T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20241016T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20240923T174431Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20241011T232526Z
UID:10861-1729080000-1729085400@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: 2024-26 Doctoral and Postdoctoral Fellows
DESCRIPTION:To register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \n  \nSino Esthappan: “The Institutionalization of Algorithmic Risk Assessments in US Pretrial Hearings”\nAcross fields\, organizations now increasingly adopt predictive algorithmic scoring systems to improve decision-making processes. Some studies find that these systems discipline workers by evaluating and directing their behaviors. Others show how\, rather than unwittingly abiding by algorithmic directives\, workers may appropriate these tools to accomplish specific goals and tasks. Yet the relational conditions under which actors follow or reject scores are not well understood\, and we know little about how organizational networks shape algorithmic decision-making practices in multiprofessional expert fields. In this presentation\, I will describe my dissertation project\, which examines how actors in the US criminal court policy field negotiate different kinds of expertise to institutionalize risk assessment tools in pretrial hearings. I will explain my plans to use archival records\, interviews\, observations\, and court transcripts to analyze how a wide multiprofessional field of national policy stakeholders and local criminal court officials makes sense of and justifies the use of varied risk assessment practices in pretrial hearings. I will conclude by discussing the implications of this research for criminal court policies and practices and scholarship on law\, organizations\, punishment\, and technology. \nSino Esthappan is an ABF/Northwestern University Doctoral Fellow in Law & Social Science. He is currently a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Sociology at Northwestern University. \n____________________________________________________________ \nRobert Gelles: “Originalism in the Making: Language\, Knowledge Practice\, and Constitutionalism in the Conservative Judicial Audience”\nDespite significant successes in pursuing its agenda\, there remains dissent among the ranks of the Conservative Legal Movement (CLM). Intellectuals in the Movement have criticized the Supreme Court judgments that seem to achieve Conservatives’ political and legal priorities. One of their central criticisms is that the Court did not use the appropriate method of legal interpretation—it failed to abide by an Originalist Constitutional Theory. Recent social science scholarship has shown that intellectuals like these play a key role in CLM. As institution builders\, conveners\, teachers\, and authors\, Conservative legal scholars help to create and disseminate intellectual resources for litigation and judicial decisions\, train a group of attorneys to take up the cause\, and act as an audience for the judiciary and profession. At the heart of their activities is a discussion about the appropriate means of interpreting law\, often centered on an argument about the nature of language. Drawing from participant observation\, interviews with members of the Movement\, and publicly posted footage of major events\, I analyze the linguistic beliefs and behaviors by which these scholars perform their roles. By taking a semiotic approach\, I aim to show how their linguistic beliefs and knowledge practices play a key role in shaping their particular and influential legal consciousness\, as well as shaping their responses to ongoing legal action. Doing so\, I suggest\, offers an opportunity to re-conceptualize a defining feature of constitutionalism: the relationship between law and politics. \nRobert Gelles is an ABF/University of Chicago Doctoral Fellow in Law & Social Science. He is currently a Ph.D. candidate in Sociocultural and Linguistic Anthropology at the University of Chicago.  \n_________________________________________________________________ \nKyneshawau Hurd: “3D of Racial Justice: Diversity\, Dominance & Discrimination. Implicit Social Dominance & The Diversity Principle-Policy Gap”\nThis work delves into the discord between the widely professed commitment to diversity\, equity\, and inclusion (DEI) in the United States and the persistent maintenance of racial hierarchies\, a phenomenon described as the principle-policy gap. Challenging traditional notions of discrimination that link it solely to overt racism or covert prejudice\, this study posits that the drive for hierarchy (or preservation of caste) is a subtler and perhaps more foundational force perpetuating racial inequalities. Further\, this works argues that this hierarchy-preservation motivation may be especially important for understanding persistent inequality in outwardly egalitarian\, pro-diversity\, and racially positive contexts.\nThus\, through a socio-psychological perspective\, the research spotlights “implicit social dominance orientation” (ISDO)—an unconscious preference for hierarchical structuring of social groups—as a significant factor contributing to this gap. Across several studies\, this work investigates the nuanced relationship between explicit and implicit social dominance orientations (SDO and ISDO\, respectively) and their impact on support for racial diversity and justice policies. Drawing from Social Dominance Theory and recent advancements in implicit cognition\, I develop a measure of ISDO and create four “Dominance Profiles”—a typology of group-based dominance motivations with implicit and explicit dimensions—to examine decision-making of those who explicitly disavow social dominance but implicitly endorse it.\nThis work further suggests that that diversity ideology\, particularly when framed instrumentally\, appeals to implicit dominance motivations and helps explain the principle-policy gap observed among egalitarians. We find evidence for the existence of ISDO and its influence on the decision-making of self-professed egalitarians. Those with higher levels of implicit social dominance (but not necessarily higher levels of racial antipathy) endorse policies that undermine racial justice efforts compared to True Egalitarians. Specifically\, policy support of Implicit Dominants\, those who explicitly endorse diversity and egalitarianism but implicit support hierarchy\, is driven by perceptions of dominant-group benefit.\nOur research highlights the importance of considering both implicit motivations and dominance motivations in understanding decision-making and behavior\, particularly among self-identified egalitarians. These findings contribute to the broader discourse on diversity to advance a 3D framework for understanding racial inequality. This framework seeks to better account for Discrimination and the ways Diversity and Dominance contribute to contemporary manifestations of it that current legal frameworks may not appreciate.\n\n\nKyneshawau Hurd is the ABF Postdoctoral Fellow in Law & Inequality. She is a social psychologist and psychology and law scholar studying the intersections of diversity\, dominance and discrimination. \n\n\nTo read the related paper for Dr. Hurd’s presentation\, reach out to Sophie Kofman or Dianna Garzón. 
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-2024-26-doctoral-and-postdoctoral-fellows/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20241002T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20241002T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20240708T203001Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240904T165419Z
UID:10315-1727870400-1727875800@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: Yuan Yuan
DESCRIPTION:When soldiers fight justly in a just war waged by their state\, they may nonetheless kill or maim innocent civilians unexpectedly or in terms of expected collateral damage in overall justified assaults. Such incidents often inflict severe moral injuries on those soldiers in the form of immense guilt\, shame\, and remorse\, which Yuan Yuan calls “the moral injuries of soldiering.” \nThese injuries appear to have a fatalistic flavor\, representing a wound at the heart of soldiering itself as they haunt soldiers even though they have done the right thing in light of the morality of soldiering. In this paper\, Yuan contends that soldiers do not kill in their personal capacity when they fight justly in a just war initiated by their state. Instead\, they kill on behalf of and in the name of the people. While their state—representing the citizenry—wronged the innocent war victims\, the soldiers carrying out the killings did not wrong them\, thanks to the exclusionary power of the rules of engagement. While the soldiers share the responsibility for the killings as citizens of the warring state\, their responsibility is no more and no less than that of any other citizen. Only if the citizenry takes up the moral responsibilities for the unavoidable killings of innocents in a just war\, through public apology\, collective mourning\, and fair compensation\, can soldiers be liberated from the crushing emotional burdens of harming the victims. \nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \n____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ \nYuan Yuan (she/her) is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of California\, San Diego. Prior to this appointment\, she was an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at NYU Shanghai. She received her PhD in Philosophy from Yale University in 2020. Her primary areas of research are ethics\, political philosophy\, and philosophy of law\, with an emphasis on the interface between them.   \nShe is currently working on a series of papers on just war theory\, which defends the core principles of the international laws of war by illustrating how political relations transform interpersonal morality in politically oriented or mediated warfare. She also has a secondary research interest in experimental philosophy\, employing empirical methods to explore patterns in ordinary people’s philosophical intuitions.  \n 
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-yuan-yuan/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20240925T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20240925T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20240917T132849Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250623T145547Z
UID:10829-1727265600-1727271000@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: 2024-26 Doctoral Fellows
DESCRIPTION:To register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \nJoshua Aiken: “The Public’s Safety: Gun Control\, Career Criminals\, and the Statutory Revolution in Arms (1961-1995)”\nThis talk examines the relationship between notions of public safety\, new firearms regulations\, and mass criminalization in the United States from 1961-1995. Synthesizing four case studies\, I argue that the racialization of space\, pathologizing of crime\, and development of a new “gun rights” agenda shaped how Americans experienced an increasingly armed society. Based on archival research\, I attend to how legal frameworks\, political approaches\, and influential actions of everyday people can index historical changes over time. First\, I consider the drafting of the Gun Control Act of 1968\, the first major federal firearms regulation since the 1930s. Second\, I examine a network of armed black resistance\, namely through the actions of the original Black Panther Party\, that revealed the racial state’s role in structuring public space\, defining who constitutes the public\, and determining what it means to be safe. Third\, I explore how a failed constitutional challenge of Washington D.C.’s 1975 firearm regulation law\, led key figures in the “gun rights” movement to a statutes-first approach. Fourth\, I foreground a suite of federal laws passed from 1984-1986—including the Armed Career Criminal Act—that criminalized people and pathologized blackness. By the 1990s\, gun rights ideologues successfully used these laws to advance their distinct agenda through conventional legal arguments\, favorable federal courts and bipartisan responses to “violent crime.” In conclusion\, I consider how these events might challenge prevailing narratives regarding the relationship between race\, gun laws\, and American social life. \nJoshua Aiken is the ABF Doctoral Fellow in Law & Inequality. He is currently a J.D./Ph.D. Candidate at Yale University (History and African American Studies).  \n_______________________________________________________________________ \nEwurama Okai: “In Search of Equal Protection Futures: How Imagined Futures Shape Racial Justice Litigation in the Progressive Legal Movement”\nUnderstanding what makes legal movements successful has long been a focus of social-scientific study. Existing literature identifies factors such as the available legal ‘stock\,’ framing of social wrongs\, resource access\, and movement coherence. Recently\, scholarship on constitutional change and conservative legal movements has highlighted an important yet underexplored factor: imagined futures. While scholars acknowledge that these futures shape legal landscapes\, they often limit their analysis to predefined scenarios or trace current conditions back to pre-determined visions. This approach leaves a gap in understanding how legal movements actively construct\, interpret\, and legitimize these imagined futures\, particularly in adverse litigation contexts. Ewurama Okai’s research addresses this gap by investigating how imagined futures influence lawyering. Through in-depth interviews with Illinois-based legal professionals and qualitative content analysis of legal scholarship\, Okai examines the doctrinal and interpretive possibilities for law. Her work aims to illuminate how imagined futures serve as a mechanism in shaping legal movements\, influenced by legal education and scholarship\, and what the mean for how the field makes changes in broader society. \nEwurama Okai is the ABF/AccessLex Institute Doctoral Fellow in Legal & Higher Education. She is a J.D./Ph.D. Candidate at Northwestern University (Sociology). 
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-2024-26-doctoral-fellows/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20240918T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20240918T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20240708T202100Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240805T173338Z
UID:10310-1726660800-1726666200@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: Kasey Henricks
DESCRIPTION:“Chicago on the Take” is a case study that focuses on parking tickets that are written under false pretenses. It leverages multiple data sets against one another to demonstrate that more than one in eight tickets over a six-year span were written under conditions when restrictions did not apply. These findings within a multilevel framework to answer three questions: (1) Are errored tickets more likely to be issued in neighborhoods with higher proportions of Black or Latinx residents? (2) Are errored tickets more likely to be issued by patrol officers as opposed to parking enforcement officers? and (3) Does ethnoracial composition moderate the relationship between ticketing authorities and errored tickets? The implications of our findings (1) quantitatively trouble the ontological assumptions of data that are defined from a policing standpoint and (2) underscore an adjudicative process that routinely sanctions drivers without cause.\nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \n_______________________________________________________________________ \nKasey Henricks (he/him) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminology\, Law\, and Justice at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He likes to pursue big questions through small things. Looking at often overlooked objects of the everyday\, from parking citations to lottery tickets\, Kasey’s research agenda uncovers how race and class inequalities are reproduced over time through reconfigurations of public finance under late capitalism. More specifically\, he has a publication record that follows a two-fold examination of 1) how seemingly face-neutral modes of raising revenue yield disparate consequences in who pays for social services and 2) the ways in which raced and classed antagonisms ideologically shape\, and become shaped by\, conflicts over state finance. His work documents various predatory developments in private-public “partnerships\,” alongside the erosion of a social safety net\, through the emergence of piecemeal revenue systems during the past half-century\, showing how raced and classed dynamics are implicated in a transformation of state finance that has become increasingly regressive and upwardly redistributive to capital interests across the globe.  \nAlthough Kasey never earned a high school diploma\, he completed a PhD with distinction in the discipline of Sociology at Loyola University Chicago. He also holds a bachelor’s degree from Austin Peay State University and an associate’s from Chattanooga State Technical Community College. Prior to arriving at UIC\, he was a faculty member of the University of Tennessee at Knoxville and an affiliate scholar at the Appalachian Justice Research Center. He has held fellowships at the American Bar Foundation\, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime\, Security\, and Law\, KWI Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities\, and UIC’s Institute for Research on Race & Public Policy\, and his research has been supported by funders like the National Science Foundation\, Russell Sage Foundation\, and Chicago Community Trust. Some of his work has been recognized with awards from the American Sociological Association\, Society for the Study of Social Problems\, Association of Black Sociologists\, Association for Humanist Sociology\, Southern Sociological Society\, Eastern Sociological Society\, and Southwestern Sociological Association. He is also a former doctoral fellow of the American Bar Foundation. 
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-kasey-henricks/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20240911T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20240911T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20240708T200454Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240822T163345Z
UID:10303-1726056000-1726061400@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: David Troutt
DESCRIPTION:Urban renewal\, a mid-century federal-local redevelopment program that transformed American cities and displaced millions of Black migrants from the South\, was a race-conscious government policy responsible for the enduring suppression of Black wealth. Its racial history and character are untold in legal scholarship. This article argues that the 25-year regime enacted in the Housing Act of 1949 was a response to the Great Migration of Black workers and families to northern\, midwestern\, and western cities. It was codified to interact with other segregation policies\, such as highway construction\, restrictive covenants\, redlining\, and public housing\, through the colorblind veneer of rational planning principles. Race planning created durable conditions of “racial bargaining\,” the discounted value of wealth-producing transactions in segregated Black communities. Since its mid-century enactment\, urban renewal federalized a race-conscious segregation policy that eluded civil rights remedies and framed contemporary urban development programs. The article shows how this framework sustained the racial wealth gap at the core of this country’s continuing struggle with structural inequality. \nReframing requires reckoning. The article presents\, for the first time\, the case for restorative remedies to Black descendants of the U.S. urban renewal program. Offering an architecture of accountability for race-conscious wrongs\, the article conceptualizes three buckets of contemporaneous\, future\, and cumulative harms\, an analysis of government wrongfulness\, and illustrative restorative programs. \n\nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org. \n_____________________________________________________________________ \nDavid Dante Troutt (he/him) is professor of law (Justice John J. Francis Scholar) and the founding director of the Rutgers Center on Law\, Inequality\, and Metropolitan Equity (CLiME). He teaches and writes in four areas of primary interest: the metropolitan dimensions of race\, class and legal structure; intellectual property; Torts; and critical legal theory. His major publications (noted below) include books of fiction and non-fiction\, scholarly articles and a variety of legal and political commentary on race\, law and equality. A member of the faculty since 1995 after practicing corporate and public interest law in New York and California\, Troutt founded CLiME in 2013 in order to provide a research resource for students and the public interested in the growing challenges of municipalities and families trying to sustain middle-class outcomes amid growing fiscal constraints and rapid demographic change.  \nSeveral themes characterize Troutt’s work. A key feature of his writing and teaching about the intersections of race\, class and place concerns identifying blind spots in conventional analyses of spatially determined opportunity through structuralist and interdisciplinary analysis. This work involves inquiries about meanings of colorblindness\, the role of inequity in persistent marginalization\, and the utility of civil rights theories in addressing concentrated poverty. Troutt is conducting ongoing research on developing the principle of mutuality in public law. Key themes in Troutt’s writing about intellectual property include personhood and authorship in copyright and trademark. Key aspects of his work in critical theory include the uses of narrative methodology\, cultural constructions of marginalization and the dynamic life of stereotypes.  \nProfessor Troutt is a frequent public speaker and contributor to a variety of national periodicals\, including Politico\, Huffington Post\, Reuters and The Crisis. He received his undergraduate degree from Stanford University and his juris doctor from Harvard Law School. \n 
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-david-troutt/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20240515T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20240515T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20231214T235759Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240404T145017Z
UID:9043-1715774400-1715779800@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: Dan Berger
DESCRIPTION:The facts of mass incarceration in the United States are well known. Yet many of the distinguishing features of mass incarceration\, including its racism and severity\, have been foundational elements of the US prison system. At the same time\, incarcerated people have consistently shown prison to be a microcosm of the social and political divisions of society overall. In this talk\, Dan Berger previews his current book project\, Prison: A History of the United States. A sweeping history of how the United States has been made and remade through prison\, the book endeavors to tell an incarcerated people’s history of the country from settlement to the present. Following the experiences of incarcerated people across a diverse and evolving set of prisons\, Berger addresses how a country that takes “freedom” as its beacon has been defined by its absence. \nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \n__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ \nDan Berger is a Professor in the School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences and Associate Dean for Faculty Development and Scholarship He is an interdisciplinary historian of activism\, Black Power\, and the carceral state in twentieth-century U.S. history. His research pursues a human accounting of how freedom and violence have shaped the United States. Much of Berger’s work is located in critical prison studies\, including the diverse ways in which imprisonment has shaped social movements\, racism\, and American politics since World War II. \nHis latest book is Stayed on Freedom: The Long History of Black Power Through One Family’s Journey\, which is a biography of the modern Black freedom struggle through the lives of Zoharah Simmons and Michael Simmons. Published in 2023\, the book has already been hailed as “a triumph in storytelling” (Hanif Abdurraqib) and a “rare\, intimate portrait … that will join classics on this period” (Imani Perry). Berger’s other books include Captive Nation: Black Prison Organizing in the Civil Rights Era\, which won the 2015 James A. Rawley Prize from the Organization of American Historians; Rethinking the American Prison Movement\, coauthored with Toussaint Losier; and Remaking Radicalism\, coedited with Emily Hobson. \nBerger co-curates the Washington Prison History Project\, a digital archive of prisoner activism and prison policy in our state. He writes often for public audiences in Black Perspectives\, Boston Review\, Truthout\, and the Washington Post\, among elsewhere. At the UW\, he is an affiliate member of the Center for Human Rights\, the Harry Bridges Center for Labor Studies\, and the UW Seattle Department of History\, and he co-directs the UW Bothell Labor Colloquium. Beyond the university\, he is on the advisory or editorial boards of the American Prison Newspaper Project\, The Global Sixties\, the Journal of Civil and Human Rights\, and the Justice\, Power\, and Politics book series at UNC Press.
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-dan-berger/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20240508T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20240508T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20231214T234653Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240430T174500Z
UID:9040-1715169600-1715175000@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: Veena Dubal
DESCRIPTION:How much does an Uber driver make per hour? Workers’ groups\, economists\, and corporate-sponsored researchers have all calculated dramatically different numbers. Why has answering this question been so fraught\, and what can we learn about the value of quantitative and qualitative research from reflecting on this question? \nIn this article\, Veena Dubal argues that rather than reflecting a “natural labor price\,” calculated via a digital assessment of supply and demand\, variable wages allocated algorithmically to individual workers are better understood as part of a new digitalized labor management practice\, what she has called algorithmic wage discrimination. By design\, algorithmic wage discrimination formulates hourly wages that are highly variable\, using data and insights about worker behavior to set labor prices differentially. Quantitative studies of wage-earning at the aggregate level thus obscure what qualitative research makes evident: wages for platform-controlled workers not only often fall below subsistence levels\, but the very methods and practices of wage-setting generate novel forms of economic suffering. Regulatory interventions\, then\, should be attendant not just to the average wage price\, which tends to disguise new harms and buttress corporate myths about the nature of digital labor management\, but also to the many problems engendered by digitalized wage allocation\, thereby heeding the demands of worker groups to intervene in the relational process of wage-determination. These qualitative findings are especially important to understanding and regulating the “future of work\,” as algorithmic wage discrimination is quickly moving from the ride-hail and food-delivery industry to the labor economy writ large. \nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \n__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ \nVeena Dubal is a Professor of Law at the University of California\, Irvine School of Law. Her research focuses broadly on law\, technology\, and precarious workers\, combining legal and empirical analysis to explore issues of labor and inequality. Her work encompasses a range of topics\, including the impact of digital technologies and emerging legal frameworks on workers’ lives\, the interplay between law\, work\, and identity\, and the role of law and lawyers in solidarity movements. \nDubal has written numerous articles in top law and social science journals and published essays in the popular press. Her research has been cited internationally in legal decisions\, including by the California Supreme Court\, and her research and commentary are regularly featured in media outlets\, including The New York Times\, The Washington Post\, The Wall Street Journal\, The Los Angeles Times\, NPR\, CNN\, etc. TechCrunch has called Dubal an “unlikely star in the tech world\,” and her expertise is frequently sought by regulatory bodies\, legislators\, judges\, workers\, and unions in the U.S. and Europe. Dubal is completing a book manuscript that presents a theoretical reappraisal of how low-income immigrant and racial minority workers experience and respond to shifting technologies and regulatory regimes. The manuscript draws upon a decade of interdisciplinary ethnographic research on taxi and ride-hail regulations and worker organizing and advocacy in San Francisco. \nDubal received a B.A. from Stanford University and holds J.D. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of California\, Berkeley\, where she conducted an ethnography of the San Francisco taxi industry. The subject of her doctoral research arose from her work as a public interest attorney and Berkeley Law Foundation Fellow at the Asian Law Caucus where she founded a taxi worker project and represented Muslim Americans in civil rights cases. She completed a post-doctoral fellowship at her alma mater\, Stanford University. She returned to Stanford again in 2022 as a Residential Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. Dubal is the recipient of numerous awards and grants\, including the Fulbright\, for her scholarship and previous work as a public interest lawyer.
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-veena-dubal/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20240501T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20240501T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20231214T231042Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240415T141147Z
UID:9037-1714564800-1714570200@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: Hiroshi Motomura
DESCRIPTION:Hiroshi Motomura will share key lessons from his forthcoming book\, Borders and Belonging. The book shows how new immigration policy insights emerge from combining approaches that are seldom adopted together. This broader inquiry reveals conceptual obstacles to finding sound responses to migration. First is a tendency to apply a simplistic single framework for evaluating migrants’ claims. In fact\, some claims invoke shared humanity\, while other claims draw on belonging to a national community. Second is a false assumption that immigration laws govern the boundary between insiders and outsiders. In fact\, immigration laws empower some insiders while silencing others. Third is a deceptive distinction between “refugees” and “migrants.” In fact\, refugees work\, and many migrants flee dire conditions. Fourth is a misleading choice between “temporary” and “permanent” migration. In fact\, the line between them is blurred. Moving beyond these (and other) conceptual obstacles is essential for developing sound responses to human migration. \nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \n__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ \nHiroshi Motomura is the Susan Westerberg Prager Distinguished Professor of Law and the Faculty Co-Director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the University of California\, Los Angeles School of Law. Motomura is a teacher and scholar of immigration and citizenship\, with influence across a range of academic disciplines and in federal\, state\, and local policymaking. \nHis book\, Americans in Waiting: The Lost Story of Immigration and Citizenship in the United States (Oxford 2006) won the Professional and Scholarly Publishing (PROSE) Award from the Association of American Publishers as the year’s best book in Law and Legal Studies\, and was chosen by the U.S. Department of State for its Suggested Reading List for Foreign Service Officers. He is a co-author of two immigration-related casebooks: Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy (9th ed. West 2021) and Forced Migration: Law and Policy (2d ed. West 2013)\, and he has published many widely cited articles on immigration and citizenship. His most recent book\, Immigration Outside the Law (Oxford 2014)\, won the Association of American Publishers’ Law and Legal Studies 2015 PROSE Award and was chosen by the Association of College and Research Libraries as a Choice Outstanding Academic Title. \nIn 1997\, Professor Motomura was named President’s Teaching Scholar\, which is the highest teaching distinction at the University of Colorado\, and he has won several other teaching awards\, including the 2008 Distinguished Teaching Award for Post-Baccalaureate Instruction at the University of North Carolina\, Chapel Hill\, and the 2013 Chris Kando Iijima Teacher and Mentor Award from the Conference of Asian Pacific American Law Faculty (CAPALF). He was one of just 26 law professors nationwide profiled in What the Best Law Teachers Do (Harvard 2013)\, and he received the UCLA Distinguished Teaching Award in 2014 and the law school’s Rutter Award for Teaching Excellence in 2021. He teaches Immigration Law\, Immigrants’ Rights\, and the Immigrants’ Rights Policy Clinic\, and he is the Faculty Co-Director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy (CILP) at the UCLA School of Law. \nProfessor Motomura was a Guggenheim Fellow in 2018 to work on a book\, Borders and Belonging: Can Immigration Policy Be Ethical?\, now under contract with Oxford University Press (forthcoming 2024). A preliminary partial version of the project was published as “The New Migration Law” in the 2020 Cornell Law Review.
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-hiroshi-motomura/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20240424T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20240424T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20231214T230258Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240417T154213Z
UID:9034-1713960000-1713965400@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: Shayak Sarkar
DESCRIPTION:Shayak Sarkar’s talk discusses the experience of taxation for domestic workers\, particularly childcare workers in private households. Drawing upon an original survey\, expert interviews\, and online forums\, he documents new observations of the employee-employer relationship and tax decision-making. Surveyed “nannies” express a strong preference for formal employment and tax reporting. Nannies also report tax ignorance and evasion by some educated household employers; others forge unique tax arrangements\, including by strategically placing some income on the books and some off-the-books. Finally\, payroll companies play a surprising role in educating and supporting workers in navigating tax- and formality-hesitant employers. In addition to presenting these preliminary results\, Sarkar discusses further work to unpack domestic worker-employer negotiations. \nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \n__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ \nShayak Sarkar is a Professor of Law at the University of California\, Davis School of Law. Sarkar’s scholarship addresses the structure and legal regulation of inequality. His substantive interests lie in financial regulation\, employment law\, immigration\, and taxation. He obtained his Ph.D. in economics from Harvard. \nSarkar clerked for the Hon. Guido Calabresi of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Prior to his clerkship\, he practiced as an employment attorney at Greater Boston Legal Services\, where he focused on domestic workers’ rights. He received his J.D. from Yale Law School\, where he was active in the Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project and the Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic. He also served as a Coker Fellow in Contracts and received the Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowship for New Americans. Before law school\, he studied as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford\, where he earned Masters’ Degrees\, with distinction\, in Social Work and Development Economics. \nHis research has appeared or is forthcoming in academic journals including the California Law Review\, Georgetown Law Journal\, the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review\, the Harvard Journal of Law and Gender\, the Yale Journal of Law and Feminism\, and the Review of Economics and Statistics.
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-shayak-sarkar/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20240417T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20240417T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20231214T224231Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240325T165022Z
UID:9031-1713355200-1713360600@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: Lucius Couloute
DESCRIPTION:Roughly 600\,000 people are released from prison each year. Contemporary reentry systems\, or webs of post-incarceration services\, are typically organized around transforming this population into law-abiding\, productive\, and responsible citizens. Lucius Couloute’s talk examines how formerly incarcerated people conceptualize reentry services amid severe structural barriers to (re)integration. In particular\, Couloute will link narratives of individualism to the various forms of exclusion and “support” described by a sample of formally criminalized people. The cleavages between post-imprisonment needs and available resources begs a critical evaluation of both existing interventions and potential alternatives. As such\, Couloute will also explore a somewhat novel (re)integrative support – direct cash transfers – for their capacity to promote post-incarceration success. \nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \n__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ \nLucius Couloute is an Assistant Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice at Suffolk University. He came to Suffolk University in the summer of 2019. Previously\, Couloute worked as a policy analyst with the Prison Policy Initiative where he produced policy reports using Bureau of Justice Statistics data and advocated for criminal justice reform. \nCouloute’s primary research interests involve the practices\, processes\, and impacts of criminalization. His current research investigates the structural barriers and cultural ideas that permeate a northeastern prisoner reentry system. His work also examines how organizations produce\, mediate\, or experience systems of inequality.
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-lucius-couloute/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20240410T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20240410T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20231214T223726Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240319T203451Z
UID:9028-1712750400-1712755800@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: Susan Bibler Coutin
DESCRIPTION:In this talk\, Susan Bibler Coutin provides an overview of her draft book manuscript\, On the Record: Papers\, Immigration\, and Legal Advocacy.  Based on 2011-2015 ethnographic fieldwork in the legal department of an immigrant-serving nonprofit in Southern California\, On the Record analyzes how immigrant residents and the attorneys and paralegals who represent them attempt to surmount documentary challenges\, deploying papers as a form of advocacy.  Undocumented residents who seek legal status in the United States face a potentially insurmountable challenge: to obtain status\, they have to document lives that they were forbidden to live. The records that applicants must present to US immigration officials may be the very things that their lives as undocumented individuals fail to produce: bank records\, check stubs from their employers\, contracts in their own names. Sometimes\, records can result in unexpected opportunities\, while other times they eliminate all hope of legalizing. The documentation requirements associated with immigration cases also have risen in recent years\, as US officials have increasingly come to see immigration as a security issue and immigrants as a potential threat. On the Record examines how broader trends in enforcement and securitization are embedded in the forms that immigrants have to complete\, the documentary expertise that service providers and immigrants have developed\, the materiality and legal significance of papers\, and the sorts of state-noncitizen relationships that emerge in the interstices of form completion. By analyzing the mundane workings of an extraordinary area of law\, On the Record argues that gathering and submitting records as part of immigration claims is a way of “documenting back” to a state that views immigrant residents as suspect. \nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \n\nSusan Bibler Coutin is a Professor of Criminology\, Law and Society\, and Anthropology at the University of California\, Irvine. She holds a Ph.D. in sociocultural anthropology and is a professor in the Department of Criminology\, Law\, and Society and the Department of Anthropology at the University of California\, Irvine.  Her research has examined social\, political\, and legal activism surrounding immigration issues\, particularly immigration from El Salvador to the United States. \nHer most recent book Documenting the Impossible Realities: Ethnography\, Memory\, and the As If\, coauthored with Barbara Yngvesson\, was published by Cornell University Press in 2023.  She recently completed NSF-funded research regarding how the production\, retrieval\, and circulation of records and files figures in immigrants’ efforts to secure legal status in the United States.  In collaboration with Sameer Ashar\, Jennifer Chacón\, and Stephen Lee\, she is completing a book project based on research entitled\, “Navigating Liminal Legalities along Pathways to Citizenship: Immigrant Vulnerability and the Role of Mediating Institutions.” Their co-authored book Legal Phantoms: Executive Relief and the Haunting Failures of U.S. Immigration Policy is forthcoming from Stanford University Press.  With Walter Nicholls\, she is currently carrying out an NSF-funded project entitled\, “Immigration Dimensions of Local Governance: Municipalities\, Neighborhoods\, and Citizenship.”
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-susan-bibler-coutin/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20240403T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20240403T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20231214T220337Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240327T154447Z
UID:9025-1712145600-1712151000@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: Sara Sternberg Greene
DESCRIPTION:One of the most basic assumptions of our legal system is that when two parties face off in court\, the case will be adjudicated before a judge who is trained in the law. Sara Sternberg Greene’s research shows that\, empirically\, the assumption that most judges have legal training does not hold true for many low-level state courts. Using data compiled from all fifty states and the District of Columbia\, Greene finds that thirty-two states allow at least some low-level state court judges to adjudicate without a law degree\, and seventeen states do not require judges who adjudicate eviction cases to have law degrees. Since most poor litigants are unrepresented in civil legal cases\, this sets up an almost Kafkaesque scene in courtrooms across the country: Legal cases that have a profound effect on poor families\, such as whether they will lose their home to eviction\, are argued in courtrooms where either no one knows the law or only one party—the attorney for the more powerful party—does. \nConsidering data collected from a case study of North Carolina\, where over 80% of magistrates do not have J.D.s\, Greene argues that allowing a system of nonlawyer judges perpetuates long-standing inequalities in our courts. She further argues that the phenomenon of lay judges is a symptom of a much larger problem in our justice system: the devaluation of the legal problems of the poor\, who are disproportionately Black and Latinx. This devaluation stems in part from an enduring cultural history in the United States of blaming the poor for their poverty and its associated problems. A change is in order\, one that intentionally considers the expertise of judges and adopts creative solutions to incentivize specially qualified adjudicators to serve as low-level state court judges. \nTo register\, or for access to the related paper\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \n__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ \nSara Sternberg Green is a Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law. She is a sociologist and legal scholar whose teaching and research interests include poverty law\, housing law\, consumer law\, bankruptcy\, family law\, contracts\, qualitative research methods\, and law and sociology. Greene uses primarily qualitative empirical methods to study the relationship between law\, poverty\, and inequality. \nHer work focuses on how low-income families understand\, experience\, and interact with the law\, how legal institutions may inadvertently perpetuate poverty and inequality\, and how structural conditions create barriers to accessing law and justice for low-income families. Greene’s work has been published or is forthcoming in the Columbia Law Review\, the New York University Law Review\, the Duke Law Journal\, and the Minnesota Law Review\, among others. She has also published work in popular outlets such as The New York Times\, Politico\, and The Hill. \nGreene received her B.A. in 2002 from Yale University\, magna cum laude and with distinction. She received her J.D. in 2005 from Yale Law School\, where she received the Stephen J. Massey Prize for excellence in advocacy and served as notes editor for the Yale Law Journal and articles editor for the Yale Law and Policy Review. She also served as chair of the student board of directors for the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization and as student director in the Housing and Community Development Clinic. After clerking for Judge Richard Cudahy on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\, Greene focused on housing law and tax credit matters at the law firm Klein Hornig in Boston before beginning a Ph.D. program. She received her Ph.D. in social policy and sociology from Harvard University in 2014.
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-sara-sternberg-greene/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20240327T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20240327T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20231214T215420Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240319T203944Z
UID:9022-1711540800-1711546200@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: Leisy J. Abrego
DESCRIPTION:Having accompanied the immigrant youth movement in the United States\, we witnessed the leadership\, relationality\, and transformative capacities of undocumented youth who fought for access to legalization. Leisy J. Abrego will highlight undocumented youth-led practices of healing as inspiring examples of kinship\, community care\, and transformation in the face of legal violence. Reframing notions of undocumented youth in the U.S. as ‘good neoliberal subjects’ as was required for public-facing activism (Pallares\, 2014)\, the talk instead centers their communal embeddedness. Undocumented youth were able to collectively organize and heal some of the harm caused by the legal violence (Menjívar and Abrego\, 2012) of the citizenship regime by going through an affective and cognitive (personal and political) transformation process in which their subjectivities were reconstituted. Shame turned into pride\, and a sense of isolation was met with a sense of kinship and belonging. Relying on humbled scholarship and participatory (co-creative) research\, Abrego takes seriously the messiness of life and the complex personhood (Gordon\, 2008) of immigrants without romanticizing their agency\, nor underestimating the embodied effects of legal violence. \nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \n_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ \nLeisy J. Abrego is a Professor in Chicana/o Studies at the University of California\, Los Angeles. She is a member of the first large wave of Salvadoran immigrants who arrived in Los Angeles in the early 1980s. \nHer research and teaching interests – inspired in great part by her family’s experiences – are in Central American immigration\, Latina/o families\, the inequalities created by gender\, and the production of “illegality” through U.S. immigration laws. Her award-winning first book\, Sacrificing Families: Navigating Laws\, Labor\, and Love Across Borders (Stanford University Press\, 2014)\, examines the well-being of Salvadorian immigrants and their families – both in the United States and in El Salvador – as these are shaped by immigration policies and gendered expectations. Her early research examines how immigration and educational policies shape the educational trajectories of undocumented students. Her second book\, Immigrant Families (Polity Press\, 2016)\, is co-authored with Cecilia Menjívar and Leah Schmalzbauer and delves deeply into the structural conditions contextualizing the diverse experiences of contemporary immigrant families in the United States. \nMore recently\, Abrego has been writing about how different subsectors of Latino immigrants internalize immigration policies differently and how this shapes their willingness to make claims in the United States. Her current project examines the day-to-day lives of mixed status families after DACA. Her scholarship analyzing legal consciousness\, illegality\, and legal violence has garnered numerous national awards. She also dedicates much of her time to supporting and advocating for refugees and immigrants by writing editorials and pro-bono expert declarations in asylum cases.
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-leisy-j-abrego/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20240306T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20240306T133000
DTSTAMP:20260417T083341
CREATED:20231214T215516Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240223T163047Z
UID:9019-1709726400-1709731800@www.americanbarfoundation.org
SUMMARY:Speaker Series: John Doering-White
DESCRIPTION:In recent years\, record-breaking numbers of young people arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border have entered U.S. government custody as unaccompanied children (UC). Whereas prior research has focused on UC’s experiences while in custody and following release to a sponsor—usually a family member—limited scholarship has examined the experiences of human service professionals working within programs that are contracted by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to care for UC. In these programs\, social workers\, mental health clinicians\, medical providers\, educators\, and transitional foster parents collaborate to provide care for UC while assessing the safety and suitability of the sponsoring context. \nThis presentation draws on 65 in-depth interviews with human service workers in ORR-contracted programs across four states to examine how they conceptualize care for UC during this transitional period. John Doering-White focuses on how two legal and policy frameworks—the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008—refract through highly politicized and mediatized bureaucracies of care and control to structure how human service providers care for UC. He suggests institutional pressures to accelerate time to release are often at odds with professional care ethics\, and that this tension risks compromising care for UC as well as the sustainability of the human service workforce in mission-driven organizations contracted by ORR. \nTo register\, contact Sophie Kofman at skofman@abfn.org.  \n_____________________________________________________________________________________ \nJohn Doering-White is an Assistant Professor of Social Work and Anthropology at the University of South Carolina. His research focuses on undocumented immigration and humanitarianism. His ethnographic work has focused on grassroots shelters that assist Central Americans migrating through Mexico. He is interested in how organizations can best assist undocumented communities considering shifting immigration enforcement trends between the United States\, Mexico\, and Central America. As part of this work\, Doering-White served as co-producer on Border South\, a feature documentary film that premiered to national and international audiences in June 2019. \nDoering-White is also actively conducting research in his hometown of Detroit in partnership with organizations that support immigrant and minority entrepreneurs navigating a gentrifying city. Data collection for this project has taken place in partnership with undergraduate students participating in a summer field school that trains students in qualitative and community-engaged methods. \nDoering-White’s research has been funded by the Fulbright Garcia-Robles program\, the Wenner Gren Foundation\, and the Institute for Field Research. His scholarship appears in Social Service Review\, Children and Youth Services Review\, the Journal of Social Work Education\, the Journal of Community Practice\, and the Journal of International Migration and Integration. He has also presented nationally and internationally on various topics\, including undocumented migration\, unaccompanied minors\, language interpretation\, and ethnographic approaches. \nDoering-White is a graduate of the Joint Doctoral Program in Social Work and Anthropology at the University of Michigan\, where he also earned his MSW. He received a bachelor’s degree in Spanish and Human Development Social Relations from Earlham College in Richmond\, Indiana.
URL:https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/event/speaker-series-john-doering-white/
LOCATION:ABF Offices\, 750 N Lake Shore Drive\, 4th Floor Chicago\, IL
CATEGORIES:ABF Speaker Series,News
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR