Category: Civil Rights

0

Family Law After Obergefell

 

The Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges marked a sea change in family law.  While the immediate impact of the decision is clear – same-sex couples now have the right to marry in every state – the implications of the decision for family law and for practicing family lawyers are considerably broader.  Recognition of marriage equality has created new issues for courts deciding divorce and parenting cases, and for lawyers advising clients about issues related to family formation and family break-up. This post will highlight the family law implications of Obergefell  and explore some of the issues that are likely to arise in future cases involving the rights and obligations of same-sex couples.

Same-sex divorce, American style

According to the Williams Institute, close to 400,000 same-sex couples were already married at the time Obergefell was decided. A recent Gallup poll estimates that more than 120,000 additional same-sex couples have married since that time. But not all marriages endure.  About 40% of heterosexual marriages now end in divorce, and it is reasonable to anticipate that the divorce rate for same-sex couples will be roughly comparable.  Indeed, access to the financial and parenting remedies associated with divorce is one of the important benefits of marriage.   But same sex divorces are likely to raise some challenging legal issues.

Parenthood and the impact of the marital presumption

When an opposite sex couple divorces, legal parentage generally is not disputed. In part, this is due to the operation of the “marital presumption” — the legal rule that identifies the husband of a married woman as the legal father of any children born (or conceived) during the marriage.  At one time, the presumption was nearly irrebutable.  More recently, courts in a number of states have allowed divorcing parties to rebut the presumption based on genetic evidence of non-paternity.

Courts and legislatures have already begun to grapple with the application of the marital presumption to same-sex couples. Although the language of the presumption is usually gendered — specifying both a husband and a married woman — some courts have interpreted the statutory reference to husband to apply as well to a female spouse.  Other courts have declined to interpret their statutes broadly, but have invoked equal protection principles to extend the marital presumption to same-sex partners. See, e.g., Gartner v Iowa Department of Public Health, 830 N.W.2d 335 (Iowa 2013).  Still others have refused to apply the presumption to same-sex relationships, citing its biological underpinnings or opining that such a step is a matter for the legislature, not the judiciary.

Even if courts apply the marital presumption to same-sex couples, questions remain about its impact. In most states, the presumption is now rebuttable, and genetic evidence of non-paternity is often (albeit not always) sufficient grounds to rebut the presumption. But should genetic evidence be relevant to parentage in a same-sex marriage, where both spouses know from the outset that one parent will not be genetically related to the child.  And how, if at all, should the presumption apply to gay male marriages, in which neither spouse is a “married woman” and where the woman who gives birth is generally not an intended parent?  These questions, of course, raise the broader issue of whether parentage should be understood as a biological fact, or (primarily) as a legal and social construct.  And, if parentage is primarily a legal construct, what role (if any) should marriage play?

Moreover, as its name indicates, the marital presumption applies only to children born (or conceived) during a marriage. But many same-sex couples today are co-parenting children who were born to one spouse before their marriage, perhaps during a prior heterosexual union.  The marital presumption is of no use here, just as it provides no basis for step-parents to assert legal parentage in the absence of an adoption.  Other doctrines such as de facto parenthood, discussed in Professor Murphy’s last post, may be available to establish parental rights, but establishing parenthood under those doctrines in fact-specific and uncertain, and the doctrine has been criticized as insufficiently protective of the autonomy of biological parents.

Moreover, while many states now recognize some form of de facto parenthood, others do not, and, in the absence of a judicial decree, states are not required to respect each other’s parentage rules.  Thus, a same-sex partner who is recognized as a legal parent in one state may not be recognized in another.  For this reason, many family lawyers continue to advise same-sex spouses to secure parental rights through adoption, even where a couple is married at the time their child is born.  But adoption can be both expensive and intrusive, and many same-sex couples understandably assume that their marriage renders adoption unnecessary, only to find upon dissolution that the law is far less settled than they imagined.  Judicial declarations of parentage, obtained at the time a child is born, could provide an alternative means of interstate recognition, but existing state procedures are not designed for same-sex couples, whether married or not.

Divorce-related financial remedies

The dissolution of same-sex marriages presents other challenges as well. Current standards for both property distribution and post-divorce spousal support depend significantly on the length of the marriage in question; the longer the financial interdependence associated with marriage, the more robust the post-divorce sharing rules.  But many of today’s same-sex marriages were preceded by lengthy periods of non-marital cohabitation, particularly in states that refused to allow same-sex marriage prior to Obergefell.  If such a couple divorces after a relatively short marriage, can a court base a property or a support award on the lengthy period of pre-marital cohabitation?   Many courts have refused to do so in cases involving opposite-sex couples who cohabited prior to marriage, noting that the applicable statutory language refers specifically to the length of the marriage, not to the length of the relationship.  Should these decisions apply to same-sex couples?  Other courts have relied on their on their equitable powers to consider non-marital cohabitation as a factor in fixing the financial consequences of divorce.  Some commentators have suggested using common law marriage as a solution to this problem.  But common law marriage has traditionally required that individuals have the legal capacity to marry each other at the time the relevant conduct took place and that the parties held themselves out as married in one of the handful of states that allow couples to contract a common law marriage.  Both of these requirements are likely to post problems for most same-sex couples.

And how should Obergefell affect the treatment of cohabitation relationships that break up without a marriage?  Prior to Obergefell, a number of states had begun to apply principles of equity or implied contract to redistribute assets accumulated in one partner’s name at the end of a long-term cohabitation relationship.  Many of these cases involved same-sex couples, and the couple’s inability to marry may well have influenced the court’s decision.  The American Law Institute’s Principles of Family Dissolution took these developments a step further by extending status-based property and support remedies to unmarried partners who “for a significant period of time share a primary residence and a life together as a couple.”  How should Obergefell’s recognition of marriage equality affect the viability of these doctrines?  Does the availability of same-sex marriage weaken claims based on non-marital cohabitation on the theory that a couple’s decision not to marry is an indication that they (or at least one of them) prefer not to be bound by marital sharing principles? Is this a preference that the law should respect, even if, in hindsight, it turns out to be a bad deal for one of the parties?  Or should courts continue to apply functional, as well as formal criteria, to determine the appropriateness of post-relationship financial sharing?

Wither Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships

More generally, how should the availability of same-sex marriage affect other legal statuses, such as domestic partnerships and civil unions? Should states that previously recognized such unions automatically convert them to marriages unless a couple explicitly “opts out?”  Or should states require that domestic partners affirmatively “opt in” to marriage?  What should be the legal default?  Will private companies that previously provided benefits to same-sex domestic partners now restrict such benefits to married couples?  And, if so, has the “right” to marry celebrated in Obergefell become an obligation to do so – a possibility that Professor Kathrine Franke cautioned against in her 2015 book, Wedlocked: The Perils of Marriage Equality.

More broadly, should states retain these alternative legal statuses as a form of “marriage lite” or have they outlived their utility now that both same-sex and opposite-sex couples have access to marriage? And if states choose to retain these alternatives, do constitutional equality principles require that they be made available to opposite-sex as well as same-sex couples? To non-romantic partners such as siblings or other relatives?  Now that marriage is available to same-sex as well as opposite sex, couples, how much should it matter?

Beyond Marriage and Divorce

Marriage equality is also likely to affect legal developments in contexts beyond divorce and parenting disputes. In her recent article, Inheritance Law and the Marital Presumption After Obergefell, my colleague, Paula Monopoli, examines the impact of Obergefell on inheritance law; she argues that important policy goals support extending a conclusive marital presumption to all nonbirth/nongenetic spouses for purposes of inheritance law, and suggests that the presumption be unmoored from its biological roots and re-conceptualized as resting on the presumed consent of the nonbirth/nongenetic spouse to be the parent of any child born during a marriage.  In a broader frame, Douglas NeJaime, argues in his recent Harvard Law Review article, Marriage Equality and the New Parenthood, that marriage equality was both enabled by – and, in turn, enables — significant shifts in the law’s understanding of parenthood and in its ongoing construction of families.  Without a doubt, this is a construction project that should capture the imagination and engage the efforts of both legal scholars and practicing family lawyers for many years to come.

0

Legal Recognition of De Facto Parents: Victory for Same-Sex Parents or Threat to Parental Autonomy

The LGBT community is celebrating two recent decisions from the highest courts in Maryland and New York recognizing non-biological “de facto parents” as legal parents. Slate and other media outlets have described these decisions as “overwhelming” victories for gay parents. Commentators also see these cases as part of the “ripple effect” of recognizing of marriage equality in Obergefell v. Hodges. After years of advocating for same-sex couples on a range of issues before both legislatures and courts, I am surprised at my reluctance to join the celebration. In questioning the wisdom of this trend, I tentatively and uncomfortably align myself with pro-marriage scholars and commentators who have long critiqued the recognition of de facto parenthood. I’m not pushing marriage but I think this new trend is unnecessary to protect same-sex families or other de facto parents and their children. I also worry that authorizing this kind of state intervention to overrule decisions of legal parents may have unintended consequences that should concern us all.

Maryland and New York join what is now a majority of states granting some or all parental rights to an adult who has acted in a parental role for some period of time but has not established legal parenthood through biology, adoption or marriage. Most states have also required that the relationship between the “de facto parent” and the child must be with the consent and encouragement of at least one legal parent. Both the New York and Maryland cases involved same-sex couples who had agreed to have a child together. The couples were unmarried at the time of the birth of their children, and the non-biological parents had not adopted the children. The relationship ends after some time in which both partners co-parented. After the break-up, the biological parents withheld access to the children and the conflicts ended up in court. Both the New York and Maryland courts reversed pre-Obergefell decisions and recognized “de facto parents.” Once recognized, de facto parents stand on equal footing with biological or adoptive parents in custody and visitation disputes.

Part of my skepticism about these decisions comes from questions about the continuing necessity of de facto parentage after Obergefell. Didn’t the Supreme Court’s establishment of marriage equality remove a major barrier to legal parenthood for same-sex couples, thereby making recognition of de facto parenthood less important? Indeed, one of the central arguments advanced by advocates and adopted by the Supreme Court was that allowing same-sex parents to establish families through marriage is essential to protect children. Justice Kennedy embraced these arguments in his majority opinion, finding that “Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, [the children of same-sex parents] suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate children of same sex couples.”

I’m not joining the “marriage supremacy” folks; I’m just noting that decisions that establish the legal recognition of parentage without marriage (or biology or adoption) don’t seem to naturally flow from a decision that opens access to marriage to same-sex couples, in part, so that both parents can secure legal ties to their child. After Obergefell, same-sex couples should now have the benefit of marital presumptions and achieve legal parenthood by agreeing to conceive and raise a child together in the context of marriage. And, for those parents who choose not to marry, Windsor and Obergefell’s constitutional analysis should undermine any remaining state law barriers to applying existing parentage statutes to same sex couples or permitting second parent adoptions by non-biological parents. And if there are continuing barriers to applying the marital presumption or other parentage statutes to same-sex couples or to second parent adoptions by gay and lesbian partners, advocates should fight those battles rather than spreading the de facto parent doctrine.

So Obergefell made the fight for de facto parenthood less critical in securing the rights of LGBT parents. But what’s the harm of expanding the legal recognition of parentage? I worry about its impact on both parents and children, particularly poor parents who are already vulnerable to state overreaching. I am concerned about the erosion of parental autonomy when courts, upon a finding of de facto parenthood, can set the decisions of legal parents aside. Of course, some of the court opinions are drawn very narrowly. I’m comfortable with the court protecting the non-bio parent in the New York case by overruling the decision of the biological mother to exclude her former partner from their child’s life. Both parents had planned to conceive the child, raised the child together for two years and continued to co-parent after they broke up for another three years. New York, in fact, limits a finding of de facto parenthood to just these circumstances. A party seeking parental rights is only a de facto parent “where a partner shows by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive a child and to raise the child together.”

 

But other states have adopted broader definitions. For example, Maryland now recognizes de facto parenthood as long as the biological or adoptive parent consented to a parent-like relationship and the non-biological parent formed a bond with the child. In Kentucky, a “de facto custodian” of a child can seek custody if he or she is “the primary caregiver, has provided financial support and has resided with the child for at least six months, and the child is under three years of age.” The residency requirement goes up to one year if the child is over three. In Colorado, a third-party can stand on equal footing with a parent in the “allocation of parental responsibilities” when the third-party “has had the physical care of a child” for at least six months and petitions the court within six months after the care has ended.

This expansion of the legal definition of parenthood makes me think about how some of the low income mothers I have represented might have fared under these statutes. The mothers who, after traffic stops unearthed warrants related to old drug possession charges, left their children in the care of a grandparent or a friendly neighbor while serving their sentences. After they were released from jail six months later, they faced custody battles from the third parties who had taken care of their children. Before recognition of de facto parenthood, my clients were presumed to have the right to decide whom their children should visit or live with, absent unfitness or other extraordinary circumstances. After recognition of de facto parentage, the grandparent or neighbor would be on equal legal footing with the mother under a best interests analysis. I also fear for the non-custodial fathers who might now be squeezed out of their kids’ lives after their children’s mothers’ ex- spouses are recognized as de facto parents without the fathers’ consent or participation.

Finally, as someone who generally favors rules over discretion in most areas of family law, I worry about the uncertainty that will result from the broader, vague definitions of de facto parent. Will it make already contentious child access disputes even more protracted and expensive? Or, worse yet, will the better-financed de facto parent always prevail over poorer, unrepresented legal parents? There is also great uncertainty about the legal rights and obligations that flow from this kind of parentage. In most jurisdictions, de facto parents can seek custody and/or visitation under a best interests standard on equal footing with the legal parent. But what if this designation creates three or four legal parents? Are they all on the same legal footing? And what about the implications of this for financial obligations to the child? Does the de facto parent also have to pay child support? If there is a third, legal parent, are his or her child support obligations reduced when a de facto parent enters the picture? Vague standards result in unpredictability and that leads to more disputes involving children.

Of course, for the petitioners in many of these cases, marriage or even second parent adoptions weren’t options at the time of the conception or birth of their children. And access to lawyers for adoption or any family law conflict is always a challenge. But courts can now send a clear message to loving, de facto parents who want to be assured of continuing their relationships with their children. To fully protect yourself and your child, you need to affirmatively establish yourself as a legal parent—marry your co-parent, petition under parentage statutes and/or adopt your child. I may be missing a lot here but that seems like reasonable family policy.

 

 

 

0

Looking Back: Lenny Bruce’s Obscenity Prosecutors & First Amendment Defense Lawyers

Ephraim London

Ephraim London (NY defense lawyer) (credit: Getty Images)

Al Bendich (SF lawyer) (credit: NYT)

Harry Kalven, Jr. (IL appellate counsel)

Harry Kalven, Jr. (Illinois appellate counsel)

Al Bendich (SF defense counsel) (credit: NYT)

The Lenny Bruce story — the one about his obscenity trials (circa 1961-64 in SF, LA, Chicago & NY) — is a remarkable story in the history of the First Amendment as well as in the culture of comedy. You’ll not find the story on the pages of the the United States Supreme Court, though Bruce forever changed the law when it came to uninhibited comedy. You will, however, find traces of that story in the 3,500 pages of trial transcripts titled People v. Bruce (sometime this fall those transcripts will be available in their entirety on FIRE’s online First Amendment Library). There in black-and-white you will find a story about laws invoked in factual situations where it was unclear that any prosecution was warranted.  It is also the story of using the law in ways that at the time were constitutionally suspect. And then there is the human story, the tragic one that first destroyed a man’s career and then destroyed him.

The backdrop of this story is the lawyers who prosecuted and defended the uninhibited comedian. It is said that the dead live on the lips of the living. Mindful of that admonition, below I have listed the names of those lawyers (adapted from my book with David Skover: The Trials of Lenny Bruce). In our judge-centric world, we tend to overlook the lawyers, the ones who are the first to plow the earth of the law. So note their names and roles in People v. Bruce.

The names listed below are those involved in Lenny Bruce’s obscenity trials (as distinguished from, say, his drug arrests and trials).

My experience with Lenny Bruce . . . was the first time I saw in action the government’s use of the might and power of the criminal justice system to crush dissent. William M. Kunstler 

Prosecutors (12)

San Francisco:

  1. Arthur Schaefer (1st Jazz Work Shop obscenity trial)
  2. Albert C. Wallenberg (2nd Jazz Work Shop obscenity trial)

Los Angeles

  1. Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr. (pretrial hearing on motion to dismiss Trolly Ho obscenity case)
  2. Ronald Ross  (consolidated Troubadour & Unicorn obscenity trial)

Chicago

  1. Samuel V. Banks (Gate of Horn obscenity trial)
  2. Edward J. Egan (Gate of Horn obscenity trial)
  3. Willie Whiting (Gate of Horn obscenity trial)
  4. William J. Martin (appeal of conviction in Gate of Horn obscenity trial)
  5. James R. Thompson (appeal of conviction in Gate of Horn obscenity trial)
Richard Kuh (NY prosecutor) (credit: Getty Images)

Richard Kuh (NY prosecutor) (credit: Getty Images)

New York

  1. Gerald Harris (grand jury & pretrial matters in Cafe Au Go Go obscenity trial)
  2. Richard H. Kuh (Cafe Au Go Go obscenity trial)
  3. Vincent J. Cuccia (procedures for appeal of Cafe Au Go Go conviction)

Prosecutors re Appeal of Companion Case (People v. Solomon)

  1. H. Richard Uviller (post judgment motions before New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term)
  2. Harold R. Shapiro (appeal of Cafe Au Go Go conviction before New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term)

First Amendment Defense Lawyers (23)

San Francisco:

  1. Seymour Fried (1st Jazz Work Shop obscenity trial)
  2. Albert M. Bendich (2nd Jazz Work Shop obscenity trial)

Los Angeles

  1. Melvin Belli  (represented by his associate, Charles Ashman, in Troubadour obscenity case)
  2. Seymour Lazar (pretrial matters in Trolly Ho obscenity case)
  3. Sydney M. Irmas (Trolly Ho obscenity case)
  4. Burton M. Marks (consolidated Troubadour & Unicorn obscenity trial)
  5. John Marshall (Illinois extradition order in Gate of Horn obscenity case)

Chicago

Maurice Rosenfield (IL appellate counsel w Kalven)

Maurice Rosenfield (IL appellate counsel w Kalven)

  1. George J. Cotsirilos (pretrial matters in Gate of Horn obscenity trial)
  2. Donald Page Moore (pretrial matters in Gate of Horn obscenity trial)
  3. Samuel Friedfeld (Gate of Horn attorney originally retained to represent Bruce & club owner Alan Robback in Gate of Horn obscenity trial)
  4. Earl Warren Zaidans (Gate of Horn obscenity trial)
  5. George C. Pontiffs (sentencing hearing in Gate of Horn obscenity trial)
  6. Harry Kalven, Jr. (appeal of conviction  in Gate of Horn obscenity trial)
  7. William R. Ming, Jr. (appeal of conviction  in Gate of Horn obscenity trial)
  8. Maurice Rosenfield (appeal of conviction  in Gate of Horn obscenity trial)
Martin Garbus (one of NY defense counsel)

Martin Garbus (one of NY defense counsel w London)

New York

  1. Howard Squadron (bail & bond for arrest in pretrial matters in Cafe Au Go Go obscenity trial)
  2. Lawrence H. Rogovin (appears for Howard Squadron in pretrial matters in Cafe Au Go Go obscenity trial)
  3. Ephraim London (lead counsel in Cafe Au Go Go obscenity trial)
  4. Martin Garbus (co-counsel in Cafe Au Go Go obscenity trial)
  5. Harry Herschman (sentencing hearing  in Cafe Au Go Go obscenity trial)
  6. Allen G. Schwartz (certificate of reasonable doubt for appeal in  in Cafe Au Go Go obscenity case)
  7. Edward de Grazia (§1983 civil rights law suit)
  8. William M. Kunstler (advisory capacity in §1983 civil rights law suit)

* * * *

Attorneys on Appeal for Bruce’s Co-defendant, Howard L. Solomon (People v. Solomon)

  1. Bentley Kassal (bail and bond for arrest and pretrial matters in Cafe Au Go Go obscenity trial)
  2. Herbert Monte-Levy (pretrial matters in Cafe Au Go Go obscenity trial)
  3. Allen G. Schwartz (Cafe Au Go Go obscenity trial)
  4. William S. Miller (sentencing hearing in Cafe Au Go Go obscenity trial)
  5. William S. Miller (sentencing hearing in Cafe Au Go Go obscenity trial)
  6. William E. Hellerstein (appeal of Cafe Au Go Go conviction)
  7. Milton Adler (appeal of Cafe Au Go Go conviction)

FullSizeRender (1)

Posthumous Pardon Petition  re People v. Bruce (1964)

  1. Robert Corn-Revere (counsel for Petitioners Ronald Collins & David Skover)
Robert Corn-Revere (posthumous pardon)

Robert Corn-Revere (posthumous pardon)

* * * *  

 No to be overlooked are the nine club owners who were either persecuted or prosecuted in connection with Lenny Bruce’s performances in their clubs. See The Trials of Lenny Bruce, p. 456 (2002).

There is also the story of the judges who presided over Lenny Bruce’s obscenity trials. That is, however, another post for another day.  Besides, there were so many of them. See The Trials of Lenny Bruce, pp. 454-456 (2002).

→ And finally, there is the story of a relentless journalist who played a key role in the Lenny Bruce First Amendment story.  His name: Nat Hentoff.

0

FAN 118 (First Amendment News) University of Cape Town Disinvites Flemming Rose — Floyd Abrams Dissents

Note: Below is a heretofore unpublished letter from Floyd Abrams. It follows another one recently posted on this blog by Professor Nadine Strossen. Vice-Chancellor Max Price, to whom both letters were primarily directed, was invited to reply. (Links have been added for reference purposes.) 

* * * *

July 24, 2016

Dear Vice-Chancellor Price:

I am a practicing lawyer in the United States who has devoted the better part of my professional career to defending freedom of expression. I am also a Visiting Lecturer at the Yale Law School, have written two books and many articles about freedom of expression around the world, and have spoken about the topic in a number of nations including, by way of example, India, Japan, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Great Britain and—of particular relevance—South Africa. I was one of a number of foreign scholars who participated in advising the drafters of the South African Constitution. I have spoken about issues relating to freedom of expression in Johannesburg, Cape Town and Pretoria. I have read your statement about the decision of University of Cape Town to withdraw the invitation to Flemming Rose to deliver this year’s  TB Davie Memorial Lecture. I take the liberty of writing this letter to you because your decision is not only of consequence to your university and to your country but to democratic nations and universities in them throughout the world.

Floyd Abrams

I would like to make two brief observations at the outset.

The first is that I am not writing to you to urge you to adopt or to apply American standards in deciding who may be invited. As your statement correctly observed, the framers of your Constitution quite deliberately adopted a general right of free expression subject to certain specific limitations relating to propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence, and “advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.”

The second is that I am not writing to suggest that the cancellation by a university of an invitation to speak made to a  prominent  public figure is unique to South Africa. Quite the opposite is true. In the United States, a number of invitations have been made and then withdrawn by universities to prominent individuals including a former Secretary of State and the current head of the International Monetary Fund after protests were feared if the speaker was permitted to offer her views. Indeed, it is precisely because of my strong belief that the decisions of those American universities—and there are many of them– were so shameful and so contrary to basic principles of academic freedom that I take the liberty of writing to you.

UnknownAt the outset, nothing in the South African Constitution lends any support to your decision. Nothing that Mr. Rose has ever said can possibly be said to constitute propaganda for war. He has never urged violence against anyone or sought to incite it. Your statement observes that “Mr. Rose is regarded by many around the world as … someone whose statements . . . possibly amount to hate speech.”. I appreciate and honor your unwillingness to say that you credit any such an insupportable charge. But if you are unwilling to do so—and there is no basis for doing so—you can hardly rely on the notion of incitement as a basis for cancelling the invitation. I note in that respect that even the clause of the South African Constitution that limits free speech protection to advocacy of racial hatred or the like does so only when the speech at issue “constitutes incitement to cause harm”.

Writing from afar, I cannot comment specifically on your expressed concern about the security risks of permitting Mr. Rose to appear except to say that your nation, as mine, has experienced security risks in the past and when aware of them has been able to protect speakers and listeners alike. The security question is not whether it can be provided; it is whether freedom of speech on your campus is so important that it is worth doing so, with all its risks. Your Academic Freedom Committee obviously thought it was. From any perspective that honors academic freedom, that is a necessary conclusion.

Dr. Max Price

Dr. Max Price

The same is true of your stated concern that inviting Mr. Rose may have the perverse effect of limiting rather than vindicating academic freedom since he “represents a provocatively—potentially violently—divisive view.” Of course, Mr. Rose himself offers provocative views. I am sure that is why he was invited. But he hardly “represents” a “potentially violently” view about anything. The risk of violence is at all not from him but from those who simply do not accept core notions of freedom of expression and academic freedom. To yield to those who cannot abide freedom of expression that they find abhorrent is to abjectly surrender to them.

There remains the first basis articulated by you for rescinding the invitation to Mr. Rose—concern about provoking conflict on campus. It is, I am well aware, awfully easy for people thousands of miles away from your campus and whose views you have not sought, to presume to advise you that even if there is a risk of conflict on your campus that follows or accompanies a speech by Mr. Rose, it is one worth accepting. Who needs, you may well ask, such second-guessers? All I can say is that those of us who weigh in on the issue from abroad do so because we care about your country, are impressed by its Constitution, and are often in awe of your Supreme Court and its liberty-protecting rulings. We also offer our views because the decision to disinvite by your great institution is one that will be viewed carefully by academic institutions around the world as they decide how to respond in similar circumstances.

The very first TB Davie Memorial Lecture was delivered by Chief Justice Centlivres, the Chancellor of your university, on May 6, 1959. He then summarized what he characterized as Professor’s Davie’s “articles of faith” as follows: “The first was that a university is primarily a centre of learning, the second that a university flourishes only in an atmosphere of absolute intellectual freedom, and the third, that the pre-eminent virtue of university life is intellectual integrity,.” Guided by those precepts, it is difficult to understand or accept the cancellation of Mr. Rose’s appearance.

Respectfully submitted,

Floyd Abrams

_______________________________________________________

News Update: Michael Cardo, UCT: A tale of two lecturers, PoliticsWeb, July 25, 2016 (“This coming weekend, the University of Cape Town will host Hamza Tzortzis, a highly controversial lecturer who propagates a radical version of Islam. His visit to the campus follows hot on the heels of an executive decision to bar Danish journalist Flemming Rose from delivering the 2016 TB Davie Memorial Lecture on academic freedom.”) 

2

FAN 117.3 (First Amendment News) University of Cape Town Disinvites Flemming Rose — Nadine Strossen Dissents

In the classic expression of freedom of speech and assembly, UCT’s policy is that our members will enjoy freedom to explore ideas, to express these and to assemble peacefully. The annual TB Davie Memorial Lecture on academic freedom was established by UCT students to commemorate the work of Thomas Benjamin Davie, vice-chancellor of the university from 1948 to 1955 and a defender of the principles of academic freedom. Organised by the Academic Freedom Committee, the lecture is delivered by distinguished speakers who are invited to speak on a theme related to academic and human freedom. 

* * * *

Note: Below is a heretofore unpublished letter from Professor Nadine Strossen. This coming Wednesday FAN will post another dissenting letter, this one by Floyd Abrams. Additionally, Vice-Chancellor Max Price, to whom the letter is primarily directed, is invited to reply should he be so inclined. (Links have been added for reference purposes.) 

July 22, 2016

Dear Vice-Chancellor Price, AFC Chair Professor Rousseau, and Professors Hendricks and McClachlan-Daniels:

UnknownAs someone who was honored to deliver the TB Davie Memorial Lecture in 2011, I was inspired by the University of Cape Town’s proud history of defending academic freedom, and its ongoing commitment to doing so, including through this Lecture and the work of the Academic Freedom Committee. I also recall fondly Dr. [Max] Price’s cordial hospitality and  appreciated support for the AFC and the Davie Lecture.

I applaud the AFC’s March 2015 decision to invite Flemming Rose to deliver the 2016 Davie Lecture, and I am heartened by the AFC’s refusal to rescind that invitation despite apparently great pressure to do so from both within and beyond UCT. Having read Mr. Rose’s enlightening book, The Tyranny of Silence, as well as many other publications by and interviews of him, I consider him one of the most principled, courageous exemplars of intellectual freedom and freedom of conscience, including freedom for religious and other beliefs. I was therefore deeply honored to present to him the biennial Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty, awarded by the Cato Institute, in New York City on May 25, 2016. For your information,  I append below this letter the text of the remarks that I delivered on that occasion.

maxresdefaultOf course, I would neutrally defend Mr. Rose’s right to speak at UCT  — and the UCT community’s right to hear his ideas – even if I strongly objected to his ideas. But he is especially deserving of a forum such as the Davie Lecture because his ideas have been so widely caricatured and misunderstood, and because these ideas are urgently important precisely due to the sensitive nature of the issues they address.

 For the foregoing reasons, I was deeply disheartened to learn recently that UCT had overridden the AFC and breached the commitment to host Mr. Rose to deliver the 2016 Davie Lecture. I was particularly disheartened by the reasons set out for that action in Dr. Price’s recently released letter, dated July 12, 2016.

These are the very same reasons that regularly have been cited to suppress the expression of any view that is politically unpopular at the particular time and place. In the U.S., for example, these were the reasons that too many universities cited for barring civil rights advocates from speaking during the twentieth-century Civil Rights Movement. Likewise, they are the same reasons why too many U.S. universities more recently barred “Black Power” activists from speaking. In a nutshell, the arguments both then and now are that the suppressed ideas could well offend other people, threatening their most cherished personal beliefs and community values, and potentially leading to violent reactions by those who are thus offended.

Professor Nadine Strossen

Professor Nadine Strossen

I have read the persuasive responses that have been issued to Dr. Price’s letter by the 2015 Davie Lecturer, Kenan Malik, and by the Index on Censorship, as well as by the AFC and Flemming Rose himself. I will not repeat the powerful arguments they made.  Rather, I will confine myself to making several additional points.

First, why does UCT succumb to the victim-blaming approach in this context that it would surely eschew in other contexts? To say that Flemming Rose should not advance ideas that others might find provocative and respond to with violence, seems to me the same as arguing that women should not wear certain clothing that others might find provocative and respond to with violence.

Second, Dr. Price’s letter references the limits upon free speech that the South African Constitution sets out, which are also generally accepted in other legal systems.  Yet the letter doesn’t expressly contend – nor could it credibly do so – that anything Flemming Rose has said, or is likely to say, would transgress any of those limits.  Indeed, apparently acknowledging as much, Dr. Price’s letter makes only the tentative, qualified observation that “Mr. Rose is regarded by many around the world as..someone whose statements.possibly amount to hate speech.”

As any survey of the media will reveal, if universities declined to host any speakers whom some people consider to have made statements that “possibly amount to hate speech,” then they would have to ban from campus just about everyone who is addressing any important, contentious, sensitive issue. For example,  in the U.S., many critics recently have denounced “Black Lives Matter” protestors as engaging in hate speech, even blaming such speech for allegedly instigating murders of police officers.

Dr. Max Price

Dr. Max Price

Flemming Rose’s speech clearly is not “advocacy of hatred . . . that constitutes incitement to cause harm,”  which the South African Constitution excludes from free speech protection (as quoted in Dr. Price’s letter). First, there is no basis for concluding that Mr. Rose would say anything that could fairly be considered “advocacy of hatred that is based on.religion.” Moreover, even if someone did engage in such “advocacy,” it would still be protected speech, unless it also “constitutes incitement to cause harm.” To the best of my knowledge,  not even Flemming Rose’s most unfair, harshest critics have charged him with “incitement” – a legal term of art that means intentionally spurring on listeners who are supportive of his views to commit harm against third parties, in a context where his sympathizers are actually likely to do so imminently. And if any such charge has been leveled, it would be patently unjustified.

If South Africa withheld free speech protection for non-inciting statements that merely criticize certain religious beliefs, or actions that are based on certain religious beliefs, then it could not protect many views that have been widely aired around the world:  for example,  criticism of’ discriminatory views and actions concerning LGBTQ individuals that are held by many Christian and other denominations and their adherents.

Third, Dr. Price’s invocation of “the rise in extremist terrorist groups” as somehow allegedly justifying suppression of Flemming Rose’s speech is also part of a general pattern that has been used to suppress a wide range of freedom, all over the world, not only in the recent past, but also historically. Ironically, this was precisely the topic of my 2011 Davie Lecture:  the unjustified violations of academic freedom in the name of fighting “the War on Terror.”

Given that this “War” is likely to remain “The New Normal” worldwide, it will remain an all-too-convenient, but unjustified, rationale for suppressing academic and other freedom.  This danger was recognized by none other than the namesake of the TB Davie Memorial Lecture himself. Let me quote a passage from my Davie Lecture, which quoted Dr. Davie’s pertinent observations.

“In his 1948 Inaugural Address, upon being installed as UCT’s Principal and Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Davie noted that `[r]ecent history has…shown …how easily and almost imperceptibly Universities can be deprived of their freedom.’  In words that are chillingly apt today  [almost seven] decades later, he warned: `Controls and restrictions [that are] imposed and accepted under conditions of war are only too meekly submitted to, even when the conditions necessitating their imposition have disappeared.'”

Fourth, I would like to add to the critiques that have already been made of Dr. Price’s argument that proceeding with Flemming Rose’s lecture “might retard rather than advance academic freedom.”  This reminds me of the much-maligned statement by a U.S. military official during the Vietnam War, that “we had to destroy the village in order to save it.”

It is also the same argument that the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected in the landmark 1997 case of Reno v. ACLU, in which the Court for the first time upheld freedom of speech for the then-new medium of online expression. The U.S. government had argued that individuals might avoid an uncensored Internet “because of the risk of exposing themselves or their children to harmful material,” and therefore that censorship could have a net positive impact on free speech. The Court resoundingly repudiated this Through-the-Looking-Glass argument for the same reason that it is unpersuasive in the current context:

“We find this argument singularly unpersuasive…[I]n the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship.”

Fifth and finally, I am troubled by the ongoing threat to academic freedom that Dr. Price’s letter signals. On the one hand, he  asserts that UCT “hope[s] never again to have to interfere with an invitation to deliver a lecture on academic freedom.” On the other hand, though, he later endorses  “a considered version of academic freedom that is avowedly sensitive to the concurrent rights to dignity and freedom from harm.” In other words, it is only his version – or UCT’s “official” version – of academic freedom that will be honored, not that of the AFC, or the viewpoint-neutral version that would be consistent with the South African Constitution and UCT’s own proud traditions, as exemplified by TB Davie.

In light of the positive experience that I was so honored to enjoy as a prior Davie Lecturer -the same positive experience that Kenan Malik described in his response to Dr. Price’s letter – and in the constant hope that “more speech” will prevail over censorship, I respectfully urge reconsideration of the decision not only to “disinvite” Flemming Rose from giving the Lecture, but also apparently to exclude him from speaking at UCT altogether, even as part of a debate or panel presentation. I don’t think that bringing any speaker to campus could reasonably be viewed as anointing that speaker “as the chosen champion of the University of Cape Town,” as Dr. Price says. Certainly, when I had the privilege of delivering the Davie Lecture, I saw myself as the champion only of my own views on academic freedom; I did not see myself as even a spokesperson for UCT, let alone its “champion.” By continuing to create fora for discussion and debate by and with speakers expressing a range of views – including such an important thinker, writer, and activist as Flemming Rose — UCT itself would continue as “the chosen champion” of academic freedom.

 Very truly yours,

 Nadine Strossen

John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law,  New York Law School

Immediate Past President, American Civil Liberties Union (1991-2008)

APPENDIX   Read More

0

Pour Myself a Cup of Ambition

It feels indulgent to have the chance to respond to reviews of my book, Nine to Five: How Gender, Sex, and Sexuality Continue to Define the American Workplace (Cambridge 2016)—all the more so given that the back-and-forth is almost instantaneous. I so appreciate Concurring Opinions for providing a forum to hear what readers have to say, and for giving me the last—or at least the next—word.

Nancy Dowd posted first with an important and provocative set of questions. She makes the accurate observation that the book is “unabashedly” focused on women. Indeed, it is. She encourages that we ask the “other questions,” invoking the advice of Mari Matsuda to look at objectionable patterns and practices and ask whether there isn’t something other than the obvious thing going on. In other words, when you identify a practice that is harmful to women, ask whether it might also involve race or class. And even when looking at problems from a strictly gender perspective—think about men. Where are they in the equation? Dowd is the perfect person to encourage this broadening of perspectives, as she has been a pioneer in the emerging field of masculinities theory (her 2010 book The Man Question is a staple in the field) and has done a brilliant job in her more recent work of unmasking the racial biases in the juvenile justice system. So why didn’t I ask more complex questions about race, class, gender identity, and the intersectional effects of these characteristics? The cheeky answer is that a book that managed to ask all those questions would be long enough to be slapped with a cover price that would deter all potential readers. But the real answer is that my focus on women as individuals and as a category was purposeful. It was an effort to refute a complacency that has developed specifically around gender.   People tend to think that because the law embraces gender equality, we have achieved it. References to a post-gender millennium and headlines saying “We did it!” (with a picture of Rosie the Riveter) make me crazy. What I see when I look at the experience of women at work is that gender is everywhere and it operates largely to the disadvantage of women. Read More

0

Just a Step on the Boss Man’s Ladder

There is no greater privilege as a writer than to have a group of people you deeply respect take the time to read your work and respond to it. Thanks to Naomi Cahn, who organized this symposium and launched it with a wonderful introduction, I have been granted this privilege for my new book, Nine to Five: How Gender, Sex, and Sexuality Continue to Define the American Workplace (Cambridge 2016).

This book was a labor of love. As many of the commentators have noted, it is based on a column I have been writing every other week for over fifteen years (the first ten for FindLaw’s Writ and the last five for Justia’s Verdict).   It blows my mind that what started as a one-off essay on whether a woman should be able to annul a marriage to a man she was auctioned off to on the reality television show “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?” would have turned into one of the most important pieces of my professional life. Because of this column, I have gotten to chronicle legal and social developments in my areas of interest and expertise in real time—a refreshing change from the world of academic publishing—and to be part of an ongoing conversation with an audience of litigants, lawyers, judges, policymakers, journalists, and the general public.

When I began writing my column, I was at the beginning my academic career, and I had just given birth to the first of my three sons. As this book was published, I was teaching that son how to drive in the middle of a significant professional transition from Hofstra Law School, after a 17-year run, to SMU Dedman School of Law, where I will serve as the inaugural holder of the Ellen K. Solender Endowed Chair in Women and Law. This book, which collects columns on women and work and ties them together with introductory essays, gave me the opportunity to reflect at this time of transition not only on my own life and career, but also on the developments in sex equality law—where we were, where we are now, and where we are headed. The book, although packaged in a lighthearted style (with some of my favorite sex discrimination cartoons!), ends on a somewhat depressing note: despite a complicated and robust set of laws mandating women’s workplace equality, the terrain remains uneven at best, slanted firmly towards inequality at worst.  In all too many respects, today’s workplace is similar to the one farcically depicted in the movie 9 to 5, which hit the big screen almost forty years ago.  Why haven’t we as a society made more progress? From this vantage point, I feel a kind of solidarity with Ellen Solender, who spoke of her mother’s hope that women’s suffrage would bring about broad-based equality for women, but her own disappointment that even her granddaughters may not live to see it. That we aren’t there yet just means we have to continue the fight. Nine to Five is one tiny piece of the effort to promote equality for all women, and my new position will be the perfect platform from which to work.

In a forthcoming post, I will respond to the provocative and interesting points raised by the reviewers, to whom I am grateful for their generosity of time and spirit, as well as their individual and collective expertise.

 

 

0

Working 9 to 5: What a Way to Make a Living

Joanna Grossman’s Nine to Five:  How Gender, Sex, and Sexuality Continue to Define the American Workplace is an invaluable contribution to the popular understanding of how gender works – or doesn’t – at work.  With wry humor and a clarity that’s all-too-rare among those who write about the law, Grossman provides a comprehensive, must-read primer for the lay reader.  But Nine to Five also is a bracing corrective to the notion that the issues raised by the popular 1980 movie of the same name are remotely as anachronistic as the bad fashion sported onscreen by Dabney Coleman, Jane Fonda, Dolly Parton, and Lily Tomlin. Read More