In her response to Innocence Interrupted: Reconstructing Fatherhood in the Shadow of Child Molestation Law (101 Calif. L. Rev. 609), Professor Melissa Murray compares contemporary criminal child molestation statutes to Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon, the all-observing watchtower that normalizes expectations of constant state surveillance. Arguing that the enforcement of child-molestation laws creates a near-constant sense of surveillance and encourages male and female caregivers to regulate their own behavior by adopting the identities favored by the state, Professor Murray illustrates how such well-meaning statutes may, in fact, perpetuate outdated gender stereotypes.
On September 16, 2013, Professor Cass Sunstein, the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard Law School, presented a lecture for Berkeley Law's Annual Jorde Symposium about the ways that regulatory agencies analyze the costs and benefits of public policies when such values are difficult to quantify. Joining Professor Sunstein as commentators were Professors Dan Farber of Berkeley Law, Lisa Heinzerling of Georgetown University Law Center, and Richard Revesz of NYU School of Law. The URL address below links to a full-length video of the Jorde Symposium proceedings.
The annual Thomas M. Jorde Symposium was created in 1996 to promote top scholarly discourse and writing from a variety of perspectives on issues related to the legacy of former United States Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. The Brennan Center at NYU School of Law named the symposium in honor of its major benefactor, Thomas M. Jorde, a former clerk to Justice Brennan and a professor at Berkeley Law. The Jorde Symposium address and commentaries are published annually in the California Law Review.
Renee v. Duncan: The Perilous Pendulum of National Politics and a Pathway to Protecting Our Nation’s Most Vulnerable Youth
CLR Diversity Editor Sean Darling-Hammond analyzes the Ninth Circuit's decision in Renee v. Duncan-the latest in a series of cases challenging Department of Education regulations that disproportionately affect low-income students by allowing teachers enrolled in alternative certification programs to engage in instruction. Darling-Hammond ultimately advocates a novel solution to allow states to champion the rights of their most vulnerable citizens in light of restrictive standards of review of regulations in federal court.
This case note is one of seven written by California Law Review members for Circuit's first case note program.
NEWS & EVENTS
August 12, 2014Defining the Whistleblower Under Dodd-Frank: Who Decides?
Founded in 1912, CLR publishes six times per year on a variety of engaging topics in legal scholarship.
The law review is edited and published entirely by students at Berkeley Law.