Digital Commons @ UDC Law (University of the District of Columbia Law Library)
Not a member yet
840 research outputs found
Sort by
Menstrual Products and the Bar: Advocacy Seeks to Create Equal Bar Exam Testing Conditions for Menstruators
No full text
Remarks: When They Go Low, We Go Local Strategies for Pursuing DC Democracy in the Age of Trump
No full textRemarks of Jon S. Bouker, Esq., Chair, DC Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, at the University of the District of Columbia, David A. Clarke School of Law, Law Review Symposium, DC Democracy During the Time of Trump: 51 and 45
Debilitating Southeastern Community College v. Davis: Achieving The Promise Of Disability Civil Rights
No full textDisability civil rights law today continues to be shaped by troubling precedent created in initial decisions of the Supreme Court under the Rehabilitation Act. This article explores the first of these decisions, Southeastern Community College v. Davis, demonstrates Davis’ continuing impact, and analyzes how this impact may be addressed. Davis was a suit brought by a hearing-impaired student who had been refused accommodations and denied admission to the College’s nursing program. Critical litigation decisions on behalf of Davis at the trial court did not contest the College’s failure to provide accommodations that are common today, such as sign interpretation, or the College’s assessment that Davis could not function adequately with such accommodations. The Court thus assumed as given the College\u27s refusal to provide Davis with accommodations and supposed that Davis could not participate safely in the clinical portion of the nursing program. The Court then concluded that her participation would require fundamental alterations in the nursing program that could not be justified as reasonable modifications. This article contends that the Davis decision perpetuated a fundamental confusion between accommodations—adjustments or aids needed for an individual to perform capably—and modifications—changes in existing programs, policies, or structures. Further, confusing accommodations and modifications risks construing individuals as either demanding unjustified modifications in policies or requesting special accommodations that are personal privileges for themselves. Presenting evidence drawn from the analysis of subsequent reported district court and appellate court cases citing or relying on cases citing Davis, the article then shows how these confusions persist nearly thirty years after the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The result is that many courts fail to assess actual capabilities of people with disabilities
Diversity And Inclusion In The American Legal Profession: First Phase Findings From A National Study Of Lawyers With Disabilities And Lawyers Who Identify As LGBTQ+
No full textThis article presents initial, descriptive findings from the first phase of a national study, with a planned longitudinal component, conducted in collaboration with the American Bar Association (“ABA”).1 With representation from all U.S. regions and states, as well as the District of Columbia, the study examined lawyers with diverse backgrounds, with a primary focus on lawyers who identify as having health conditions, impairments, and disabilities, and on lawyers who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or as having other sexual orientations and gender identities (“LGBTQ+” as an overarching term). Importantly, the investigation also considered the intersectional nature of these identities
Echoes of 9/11: Rhetorical Analysis of Presidential Statements in the War on Terror
No full textThis article examines persuasive statements by Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump involving appeals to national identity as a rhetorical foundation for anti-terrorism policy since 9/11. Their specific rhetorical methods have included the use of memorable catchphrases, alliteration, metaphorical framing, and contrast between values of the United States and those of the terrorists. President Bush focused on rallying the nation’s response against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, identifying the U.S. with “freedom itself” and invoking the phrase “War on Terror.” President Obama emphasized the importance of the nation’s values while denouncing the Bush administration’s torture of terrorism suspects and extolling American values when announcing that U.S. forces killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks. In contrast to his predecessors, who explicitly stated that the U.S. was not at war with Islam, President Trump has tended to invoke anti-Muslim sentiment in his anti-terrorism rhetoric and his immigration policies. The presidential statements presented justifications for the actions of the Chief Executives and reflected their priorities in directing the “War on Terror.