Law & Society

Here’s the original story from 2008 - 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25854696/

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/simpson/jurypage.html

Perry Mason type spoof on Jay Leno - http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=judge+ito&aq=f

Chris Rock & Oprah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aKBJKKZHqk

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/view/

The two articles that you have for this week are focused on news reporting in the OJ Simpson case.  My goal for this week is for us to talk about how media reporting can shape (and be shaped by) people’s everyday understandings of law.  It is worth noting now that these authors do not write specifically about law.  Nevertheless, we have plenty of previous readings on law that we can draw on to do the analysis ourselves.

Alderman’s article is about how the news industry went about reporting on the OJ case.  He contends that there was “hypercoverage” -meaning that the OJ trial was reported on at the expense of other kinds of news. Alderman is a geographer and, as a result, his article emphasizes our OJ reporting shaped a national understand of the Los Angeles area. How do you think this hypercoverage affected our cultural understandings of law?

Hunt’s article is focused on how people perceived the OJ Simpson trial.  He argues that understandings of the trial (and verdict) were “raced” – meaning that African Americans and whites had very different responses to and interpretations of the trial.  We have talked about how various racial/ethnic groups experience the law differently.  But for our discussion this week I would like to talk about how various racial/ethnic groups think differently about the law.

Herek analyzes gender gaps in people’s opinions about gays and lesbians.  He found that straight men and women had different attitudes towards gays and lesbians.  In addition he found that heterosexuals were generally more favorable of lesbians than gay men.  What is the evidence he offers for these claims (i.e. what are the patterns)?  How does Herek explain these differences?  What do you think the implications might be for laws regarding gays and lesbians – employment discrimination, adoption, and gay marriage?

Craig, et al., are interested in people’s ambivalent political attitudes.  In this article, they develop a survey to assess ambivalence and then interview people on their attitudes about gay rights.  They find that people’s attitudes toward gay and lesbian rights are ambivalent and vary according to the particular kinds of issues at stake.  What patterns do they find? How do they explain these ambivalences? (particularly note their discussion of core values).

Soule analyzes same-sex marriage bans throughout the US in the last quarter of the 20^th century.  She argues that the passage of such bans must be explained by a complex interplay of interest groups, citizens’ ideologies and previous laws in the area.  How does each of these issues come into play?  What kinds of conditions are most likely to encourage/discourage the passage of same-sex marriage bans?

Vlosky and Monroe consider the emergence of no-fault divorce in the US.  They point out that scholars have been trying to determine if no-fault divorce laws increased divorce in the US, but no clear answer is available.  What do prior research studies find (identify at least 2)?  How do Vlosky and Monroe suggest resolving these conflicting findings?  What do they find?

Braver, Cookstone and Cohen survey family law attorneys to find out about their experiences with divorce.  What patterns do they find?  What are the implications of their findings?

Glenn and Rodgers, Nakonezny and Shull have engaged in a longstanding debate regarding the importance of no-fault divorce legislation on divorce rates.  You have two sample articles from this discussion here.  From what you can tell, what is the debate between them?  What evidence do they draw on to reach different conclusions?

One trend emerging in some states to “save” marriage (i.e. eliminate/reduce divorce) is to establish covenant marriages.  This movement is driven by the Christian Right.  Feld, Rosier and Manning  argue that the covenant marriage movement represents a new angle for the Christian Right and appears to more successful than some of their previous endeavors.  What is covenant marriage?  How is the Christian Right moving differently on this issue? Why do the authors think they are successful?

This entry is from the Purdue Online Writing Lab - http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/614/03/

Obviously the sample is not written for sociology.  So, don’t worry about the content itself.  Instead, what I like about this sample is that there is (1) a summary, (2) a critical analysis, and (3) an assessment of the possible uses of the text.  (In this case, the person is offering a general recommendation.  In your annotated bibliographies, I’d like to see how you plan to use this entry in your literature review.)

Sexual Harassment in schools

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okwSobFGQcE

Rape in the Military

Interview - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDO9a03oZY0

PBS - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_RnRmhgETo&feature=related

Here is the clip of the re-created Doll Study

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=7213714&page=1

And here are extended versions of the quotes I posted in class…

Plessey v. Ferguson

“We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it. The argument necessarily assumes that if, as has been more than once the case, and is not unlikely to be so again, the colored race should become the dominant power in the state legislature, and should enact a law in precisely similar terms, it would thereby relegate the white race to an inferior position. We imagine that the white race, at least, would not acquiesce in this assumption. The argument also assumes that social prejudices may be overcome by legislation, and that equal rights cannot be secured to the negro except by an enforced commingling of the two races. We cannot accept this proposition. If the two races are to meet upon terms of social equality, it must be the result of natural affinities, a mutual appreciation of each other’s merits, and a voluntary consent of individuals.”

Brown v. Board of Education (Footnote 11)

“Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.”We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

This week is really about the inadequacies of law – of current laws’ inability to fully capture and label our experiences with sexual harassment and rape.  

Morgan asks women to tell stories about sexual harassment at work and why they chose to sue or not to sue.  We know in general that a large number of people who experience sexual harassment do not sue.  From the perspective of Galanter (and also Mullis and May & Stengal) we might not expect women to sue who are resource poor (the have nots – who lack money, connections to lawyers, knowledge of the law, etc.).  Morgan, however, argues that womens’ narratives do not conform to this pattern.  In what ways do women’s narratives not fit this resource model?  How does Morgan explain women’s decisions to sue or not to sue?

Guiffre and Williams conducted in depth interviews with wait-staff at an Austin restaurant.  They found that the restaurant was a highly sexualized workplace and that while many staff experienced situations that could technically be labeled as sexual harassment, the staff only labeled such situations as sexual harassment under a few conditions.  What are the conditions under which wait staff view an interaction as sexual harassment?  What are the possible implications of these ways of viewing sexual harassment (who is being targeted)?

Dellinger and Williams consider how organizational culture impacts local understandings of sexual harassment in the workplace.  They conduct observations at two distinct working environments (a male pornographic magazine and a feminist magazine).  They find that workplace norms about sexual displaces could respectively be characterized as a “locker room” and a “dorm room.”  What are these two environments like and how does each define sexual harassment?

Antecol and Cobb-Clark analyze data on how people think about sexual harassment.  First they note that there have been changes between the mid 1970s and mid-1990s in the types of complaints that are filed.  But more importantly, they find that attitudes about sexual harassment have changed.  What changes in attitude do they see and how do they explain these changes?

Kalof, et al look at sexual harassment on college campuses.  The authors point out that sexual harassment is quite common, but they set out to explore sub-categories of sexual harassment (5 categories ranging from gender harassment to sexual assault).  What patterns do they find about sexual harassment on campuses?  What are the implications of their findings?

Texieria considers the sexual harassment experiences of African American women working in law enforcement.  Texieria sets out to analyze the interaction between race and gender in the experience sexual harassment and chooses law enforcement because it is an environment that tends to be highly gendered and raced (white male).  What does she find regarding the sexual harassment of African American women? What are the consequences of this kind of harassment?

Calavita is responding to the Italian Supreme Court’s decision to throw out a rape conviction because the victim was wearing blue jeans – an item they argued could not be removed without consent.  More importantly, Calavita argues for the deconstitutive power of law.  What does she mean? Conversely, what does it mean to say that the law has constitutive power?

Matoesian analyzes rape shield laws (laws that prevent the defense from inquiring too much into the victim’s past sexual behavior).  Matoesian argues that the focus on rape shield laws basically misses the point because the larger trial process (particularly the impeachment process) invokes a general patriarchal understanding of sexuality and victimization.  What is his evidence for this claim?  What does he think we should do instead?

MacKinnon’s “Rally Against Rape” is a speech in which she argues that current notions of rape are embedded in structures of race and gender.  The short story is that current notions of rape protect the privileged status of white males and silence all women about their experiences.  What is the basis for her argument?  What does she think we should do about the situation?