Jason P. Nance *
Over the last three decades, our nation has witnessed a dramatic change regarding how schools discipline children for disruptive behavior. Empirical evidence during this time period demonstrates that schools increasingly have relied on extreme forms of punishment such as suspensions, expulsions, referrals to law enforcement, and school-based arrests to discipline students for violations of school rules. For example, from the 1972–73 school year to the 2009–10 school year, the number of students expelled or suspended from secondary schools increased from one in thirteen to one in nine. Between 1974 and 2012, the number of out-of-school suspensions increased nationally from 1.7 million to 3.45 million. There is also substantial evidence that referrals to law enforcement and school-based arrests have significantly in-creased in recent years.
Continue reading.
* Associate Professor of Law, Associate Director of Education Law and Policy, University of Florida Levin College of Law. I thank the participants of the University of Richmond Law Review’s Allen Chair Symposium on School Inequality for their helpful comments on this topic. I also thank Samanta Franchim, Anthony Kakoyannis, and Laura Liles for their outstanding research assistance. Finally, I thank the University of Richmond Law Review for organizing this symposium and for their editorial help.
Pamela J. Meanes *
A fourteen-year-old Henrico County girl faces assault and battery charges because she threw a baby carrot at one of her former teachers. School disciplinary documents allege the baby carrot was used as a weapon. A Huron High School student threatens to do ?chopper rounds? in his hallway. An Ames, Iowa middle school student brings a BB gun to school. A sixteen-year-old Minnesota Harding High School student told St. Paul police that he brought a loaded gun to class to protect himself from a gang.
Continue reading.
* Partner, Thompson Coburn, LLP; President, National Bar Association 2014–15. J.D., University of Iowa; M.A., Clark Atlanta University; B.A., Monmouth College.
Thomas DiStanislao, III *
Ann Elizabeth Reid **
This year, the University of Richmond Law Review observes its Golden Anniversary with the publication of its fiftieth volume. We take this opportunity to look back over our journal’s history, to celebrate its many successes, and to honor and thank all those who have contributed to both the evolution and the survival of this Law Review over the last several decades.
Continue reading.
* Editor-in-Chief, Volume 50.
** Lead Articles Editor, Volume 50.
Hamilton Bryson *
J. Rodney Johnson, Professor of Law, Emeritus, of the University of Richmond, was one of the preeminent legal scholars of wills and testamentary trusts in Virginia. He was born in the Oak Grove section of Richmond, Virginia, on July 9, 1939, into a devout Baptist family, of which he was one of five sons.
Continue reading.
* Blackstone Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. LL.D., 2013, University of Cambridge; Ph.D., 1972, University of Cambridge; LL.M., 1968, University of Virginia School of Law; LL.B., 1967, Harvard Law School; B.A., 1963, Hampden-Sydney College.
Deborah Thompson Eisenberg *
As Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 turns fifty,[1] many employers continue to search for effective ways to integrate its rights-based antidiscrimination mandates into the practical realities of managing an organization. Title VII and related laws[2] have two core purposes. The “primary objective” is an antidiscrimination or egalitarian goal: “to achieve equality of employment opportunities and remove” discriminatory barriers in the workplace.[3] In the words of one federal court, Title VII aimed “to liberate the workplace from the demeaning influence of discrimination, and thereby to implement the goals of human dignity and economic equality in employment.”[4]
Continue reading.
* Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Center for Dispute Resolution, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. I am grateful for the restorative justice practitioners who shared their wisdom and experiences, including Dr. Lauren Abramson, Kay Pranis, Beth Alosi, Tracy Roberts, and Leigh Ann Roberts, as well as my colleagues at the Center for Dispute Resolution: Barbara Sugarman Grochal, Toby Treem Guerin, and Anastasia Smith. I also thank the scholars who commented on the idea and previous drafts, including Michael Fischl, Elayne Greenberg, Maxwell Stearns, Martha Ertman, Leigh Goodmark, and other faculty at Maryland Carey Law, the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, the AALS ADR Section Works-in-Progress Conference, and the Law & Society Conference. Kerishe Allen, Jenny Rensler, Charles Pipins, and Susan McCarty provided excellent research and citation assistance.
[1]. Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (2012). President Lyndon Johnson signed Title VII into law on July 2, 1964. Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 28 U.S.C. and 42 U.S.C.).
[2]. Other employment discrimination laws include, for example: the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213 (2012), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621–634 (2012), and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) (2012).
[3]. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 429–30 (1971).
[4]. King v. Hillen, 21 F.3d 1572, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Jacqueline Fox *
Healthcare reform is not a singular event, but instead is a constant process that will continue into the foreseeable future. This article proposes a creative solution to the acrimonious and debilitating method we currently use in assessing and implementing healthcare reform proposals.
Continue reading.
* Associate Professor, Health Law and Bioethics, University of South Carolina School of Law. J.D., LL.M., Georgetown University Law Center. The author was a post-doctoral Greenwall Fellow in Health Policy and Bioethics and a Yale University Donaghue Visiting Scholar of Research Ethics. The author would like to thank Seth Stoughton, Ann M. Marciarille, and Alex Ruskell for their comments and Ryan Adams and Tony R. Johnson for their work as research assistants. This project was presented in an earlier form at the Health Law Professors Conference in San Francisco in 2014, and the author would like to thank the attendees for their excellent comments.
