Copyright (c) 2009 All rights reserved. http://works.bepress.com/minna_kotkin Recent documents in Minna J. Kotkin en-us Sun, 31 May 2009 09:31:29 PDT 3600 http://works.bepress.com/minna_kotkin/21 http://works.bepress.com/minna_kotkin/21 Mon, 02 Mar 2009 12:02:12 PST In today's law schools, article placement is a significant consideration in hiring, promotion, tenure, and lateral mobility. This article analyzes authorship by gender and home school "privilege" in 15 law reviews (the "top ten") over a three year period. It compares these data with the gender composition of the professoriate and of the 15 schools' faculties, using Association of American Law Schools and American Bar Association statistics. The mean percentage of articles authored by one or more women (and no men) is 20.4. Nationally, women comprise 31% of the tenured/tenure-track professoriate and 28.3% at the 15 schools. At the associate and assistant professor levels, the national figures are 46.8% and 53.9% respectively. At schools ranked 15 to 40, however, the percentage of women authors is greater than their representation in the professoriate, with a mean of 34%. As to privilege, 42% of authors come from US News top ten schools, 64% from the top 25, and 75% from the top 50, cumulatively.The article considers a number of possible explanations for the gender disparity, including: years and subject matter of teaching; affirmative action; institutional and family commitments; and social science theories. At least as to the quantifiable hypotheses, none fully explains the disparity. The article concludes with the suggestion that editorial boards examine their selection processes for unconscious bias with regard to gender and conscious bias with regard to privilege and that they consider adopting true anonymous submissions. It also argues that some number of women academics do not pursue "audacity" techniques, such as aggressive expediting and soliciting endorsements, that may contribute to article placement in elite journals. Although the gender gap in hiring and promotion has largely been resolved, the top of the legal academic ladder will elude women until the gender disparity in publications is overcome. Minna J. Kotkin Legal Education Legal Profession Women http://works.bepress.com/minna_kotkin/20 http://works.bepress.com/minna_kotkin/20 Sun, 17 Aug 2008 02:48:30 PDT In today's law schools, article placement is a significant consideration in hiring, promotion, tenure, and lateral mobility. This article analyzes authorship by gender and home school "privilege" in 15 law reviews (the "top ten") over a three year period. It compares these data with the gender composition of the professoriate and of the 15 schools' faculties, using Association of American Law Schools and American Bar Association statistics. The mean percentage of articles authored by one or more women (and no men) is 20.3. Nationally, women comprise 31% of the tenured/tenure-track professoriate and 28.3% at the 15 schools. At the associate and associate professor levels, the national figures are 46.8% and 53.9% respectively. As to privilege, 45% of authors come from US News top ten schools, 61% from the top 25, and 70% from the top 50, cumulatively.The article considers a number of possible explanations for the gender disparity, including: years and subject matter of teaching; affirmative action; institutional and family commitments; and social science theories. At least as to the quantifiable hypotheses, none fully explains the disparity. The article concludes with the suggestion that editorial boards examine their selection processes for unconscious bias with regard to gender and conscious bias with regard to privilege and that they consider adopting true anonymous submissions. It also argues that some number of women academics have not perfected the "audacity" factor that may contribute to article placement in elite journals. Although the gender gap in hiring and promotion largely has been resolved, the top of the legal academic ladder will elude women until the gender disparity in publications is overcome. Minna J. Kotkin Women http://works.bepress.com/minna_kotkin/19 http://works.bepress.com/minna_kotkin/19 Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:43:54 PDT Minna J. Kotkin http://works.bepress.com/minna_kotkin/18 http://works.bepress.com/minna_kotkin/18 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:47:23 PST Multiple claims are a fixture of employment discrimination litigation today. It is common if not ubiquitous for opinions to begin with a version of the following litany: plaintiff brings this action under Title VII and the ADEA for race, age and gender discrimination. EEOC statistics show the exponential growth of multiple claims, in part because its intake procedures lead claimants to describe their multiple identities, at a time when they have little basis upon which to parse a specific category of bias. But increased diversity in workplace demographics suggests that frequently, disparate treatment in fact may be rooted in intersectional or "complex" bias: while stereotypes for "women" have somewhat dissipated, those for "older African-American women" still hold sway. Complex bias provides a counter-narrative to the currently in vogue characterization of workplace discrimination as "subtle" or "unconscious." Despite the common sense notion that the more "different" a worker is, the most likely she will encounter bias, empirical evidence shows that multiple claims--which may account for more than 50% of federal court discrimination actions--have even less chance of success than single claims. A sample of summary judgment decisions on multiple claims reveals that employers prevail at a rate of 96%, as compared to 73% for employment discrimination claims generally. Multiple claims suffer from the failure of courts and "intersectional" legal scholars to confront the difficulties inherent in proving discrimination using narrowly circumscribed pretext analysis. Applying "sex-plus" concepts does not address the underlying paradox inherent in the proof of these cases: the more complex the claimant's identity, the wider the evidentiary net must be cast to find relevant comparative, statistical and anecdotal evidence. Overcoming the courts' reluctance to follow this direction requires the development and introduction of social science research that delineates the nuanced stereotypes faced by complex claimants. Minna Kotkin Employment Practice Civil Rights http://works.bepress.com/minna_kotkin/17 http://works.bepress.com/minna_kotkin/17 Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:06:29 PDT Minna J. Kotkin http://works.bepress.com/minna_kotkin/16 http://works.bepress.com/minna_kotkin/16 Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:04:52 PDT Minna J. Kotkin http://works.bepress.com/minna_kotkin/15 http://works.bepress.com/minna_kotkin/15 Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:03:46 PDT Minna J. Kotkin http://works.bepress.com/minna_kotkin/14 http://works.bepress.com/minna_kotkin/14 Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:01:16 PDT Minna J. Kotkin http://works.bepress.com/minna_kotkin/13 http://works.bepress.com/minna_kotkin/13 Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:58:20 PDT Minna J. Kotkin http://works.bepress.com/minna_kotkin/12 http://works.bepress.com/minna_kotkin/12 Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:53:36 PDT Minna J. Kotkin