6163 research outputs found
Sort by
Student Life E-Newsletter October 9, 2023
Get PDFhttps://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/studentlife/1137/thumbnail.jp
Student Life E-Newsletter October 2, 2023
Get PDFhttps://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/studentlife/1136/thumbnail.jp
Student Life E-Newsletter August 21, 2023
Get PDFhttps://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/studentlife/1130/thumbnail.jp
Student Life E-Newsletter February 27, 2023
Get PDFhttps://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/studentlife/1122/thumbnail.jp
Student Life E-Newsletter April 17, 2023
Get PDFhttps://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/studentlife/1128/thumbnail.jp
Seeking Higher Ground: Developing a Tribal Model Code for Disaster and Emergency Management in a Complex Jurisdictional Environment
Get PDF“The teepee is much better to live in;
always clean, warm in winter, cool in summer; easy to move. The white man builds his big house, cost much money, like big cage, shut out sun, can never move; always sick. Indians and animals know better how to live than white man; nobody can be in good health if does not have all the time fresh air, sunshine, and good water.”
- Chief Flying Hawk[1]
In 2019, I opened my submission for the Sovereignty Symposium’s Doolin Award with the statement above. The entry was accepted and reprinted in the American Indian Law Journal (AILJ) in the Spring of 2020 by the Seattle University School of Law.[2] The article, Mapping a Way Through Disaster and Emergency Issues Involving Indian Country and the Importance of Legal Preparedness, was designed to “explore why complex jurisdictional issues in Indian Country make disaster and emergencies, whether they be natural or human-made, extremely difficult for tribal authorities to address.”[3] Little did anyone know what profound challenges and changes awaited us not long after the article was published. This paper will explore what has happened since 2020 and the effects the recent developments have had on disaster preparedness, response, and mitigation in Indian Country.
This paper is divided into multiple sections to guide the reader through complex jurisdictional issues facing American Indian Nations and Tribes when it comes to disaster preparedness and response. Part I will be used to provide a brief introduction into various disaster-related changes experienced in the last three years, largely due to COVID-19. Part I will also briefly introduce the changes in jurisdictional realities because of recent United States Supreme Court opinions during the past three years. Part II will provide a detailed overview of what is at stake when disasters strike Indian Country. Part III will explore the current state of federal Indian law and recent case law that may influence issues of jurisdiction and sovereignty. Part IV will discuss the current state of disaster law since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Part V will be used to propose the existence of a field of federal Indian disaster law category. This category will provide the foundation for new solutions and opportunities for tribes to stake their ground for sovereignty and self-preservation. Part VI will then be used to propose the structure and contents for a Disaster and Emergency Management Model Code (DEMMC) for American Indian Nations and Tribes to consider. In the end, this paper will be used to recommend that tribes must take steps necessary to survive future disasters by adopting a Disaster and Emergency Management Model Code to account for the various legal, jurisdictional, and cultural aspects of disaster in Indian Country. Most importantly, tribes should do so before the federal Indian law legal landscape is altered so much so that they are prevented from exercising their true sovereignty on the issue. The tribes must reach and stake the higher ground before others do
2023 State of the Law School
Get PDFDean Anthony E. Varona of Seattle University School of Law provides an update on recent highlights, opportunities, and challenges in his 2023 State of the Law School message
https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl/vol28/iss1/3/
No full textIn an era of mass incarceration, many people are socialized through interactions with the carceral state. These interactions are powerful learning experiences, and by design, they are contrary to democratic citizenship. Citizenship is about belonging to a community of equals, being entitled to mutual respect and concern. Criminal punishment deliberately harms, subordinates, and stigmatizes. Encounters with the carceral system are powerful experiences of anti-democratic socialization, and they impact peoples’ sense of citizenship and trust in government. Accordingly, a large body of social science research shows that eligible voters who have carceral contact are significantly less likely to vote or to participate in politics. Hence, the carceral system’s impact on political participation goes well beyond those who are formally disenfranchised due to convictions. It also suppresses participation among the millions of legally eligible voters who have not been formally disenfranchised—people who have had more fleeting encounters with law enforcement or vicarious interactions with the carceral system.
This Article considers the implications of these findings from the perspective of voting rights law and the constitutional values underlying it. In a moment when voting rights are under siege, voting rights advocates are in a heated discussion about how our federal and state constitutions protect ideals of democratic citizenship and political equality. This discussion has largely (and for good reason) focused on how the law should address what I call “de jure” suppression: tangible election laws and policies that impose legal barriers to voting, or dilute voting power. Eliminating these formal barriers to voting is vital. But, I argue, fully realizing the constitutional values underlying voting rights will also require also addressing what I call “de facto” suppression, or suppression through socialization. This occurs not through formal legal restrictions on voting, but when state institutions like the carceral system systematically socialize citizens in a manner that is incompatible with democratic citizenship.
I show how de facto suppression threatens the constitutional interests protected by the right to vote just like de jure suppression does. In short, by systematically socializing people in a manner that is fundamentally incompatible with democratic citizenship, the state can effectively strip a citizen of much of the instrumental and intrinsic value conferred by the right to vote. Those who are concerned about advancing and protecting voting rights should understand the carceral system’s anti-democratic socialization as a form of political suppression—one that should warrant constitutional scrutiny for the same reasons that de jure suppression should warrant scrutiny
Per se Inequality: A Review of Judge Richard Gergel\u27s Unexampled Courage
Get PDFOn a cool winter night in 1946, Isaac Woodard, Jr. was on his way home after serving in the United States Army in World War II. Woodard would not make it home – at least not as the same man he had been. He would be beaten, blinded, and jailed. What would follow from this incident, and so many more, was an awakening to the cruel and unjust treatment of African Americans throughout the nation. However, this awakening and action would not come over night. It would be fought on many fronts: from Judge Waties Waring’s courtroom, to the Oval Office, to the United States Supreme Court
Beyond the Business Case: Moving from Transactional to Transformational Inclusion
Get PDFWhile workplace diversity is a hot topic, the extent to which the diversity management movement has effectively improved intergroup relations and reduced racial inequality remains unclear.1 Despite large investments in diversity and inclusion training and other company wide initiatives, historically excluded groups remain vastly underrepresented in leadership and the most lucrative careers, such as finance, law, and technology. This calls the efficacy of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts into question, particularly with respect to reducing racial inequality in the workplace.
This Article explains why it is time for organizational leaders to move beyond the transactional case for diversity and instead use transformational messaging that is more likely to win both hearts and minds, change structures, and ultimately drive meaningful change. Part I explains the goals of a transactional approach and the resulting disconnect at both the individual and system levels. Part II discusses the goals of a transformational approach and offers preliminary empirical evidence that suggests it is more likely to drive inclusive action. Part III lays out a future research agenda that aims to further uncover why transformational messaging is more effective and why transactional messaging may backfire, with particular attention to social psychological mechanisms