1,721,014 research outputs found
Season 4, Episode 3: Psychological Parenthood w/ Professors Douglas Nejaime & Anne Dailey
No full textRuntime 36:32The guests for this episode are Professors Douglas NeJaime and Anne Dailey, respectively, Professor of Law at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut and Professor of Law at the University of Connecticut School of Law in Hartford, Connecticut. Professors NeJaime and Dailey join the pod to chat about their Article, co-authored with Professor Anne Alstott, “Psychological Parenthood,” which discusses the psychological parent principle and reframing family law with psychological parenthood as it overarching guideline.Silberberg, Lee; Nejaime, Douglas; Dailey, Anne. (2022). Season 4, Episode 3: Psychological Parenthood w/ Professors Douglas Nejaime & Anne Dailey. Retrieved from the University Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/258990
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Inclusion, Accomodation, and Recognition: Accounting for Differences Based on Religion and Sexual Orientation
No full textThis Article analyzes the rights claims and theoretical frameworks deployed by Christian Right and gay rights cause lawyers in the context of gay-inclusive school programming to show how two movements with conflicting normative positions are using similar representational and rhetorical strategies. Lawyers from both movements cast constituents as vulnerable minorities in a pluralistic society, yet they do so to harness the homogenizing power of curriculum and thereby entrench a particular normative view. Exploring how both sets of lawyers construct distinct and often incompatible models of pluralism as they attempt to influence schools\u27 state-sponsored messages, this Article exposes the strengths as well as the limitations of both movements\u27 strategies. Christian Right lawyers\u27free speech strategy-articulating religious freedom claims through the secular language of free speech doctrine-operates within an inclusion model of pluralism. This model stresses public participation and engagement with difference. After making significant advances over the past several years, lawyers have begun to employ the inclusion model with some success in the school programming domain, despite signficant doctrinal and remedial limitations. At the same time, Christian Right lawyers assert parental rights and free exercise claims in curricular challenges. Such claims rely on an accommodation model of pluralism that permits selective withdrawal based on religious beliefs and thereby resists active engagement with difference. This strategy struggles in the face of a well-accepted view of civic education that values exposure to diversity-a view bound up with the success of the Christian Right\u27s inclusion model of pluralism. Gay rights lawyers respond to Christian Right claims by drawing on a left multicultural model of pluralism. This model conceptualizes lesbians and gay men as identity holders (rather than sex actors), and in doing so succeeds in justifying the inclusion of sexual orientation in programming that prioritizes diversity. The left multicultural claim stalls, however, when it demands the state\u27s affirmative cultivation of respect by asserting students\u27 rights to gay-inclusive instruction. In the end, both the Christian Right and gay rights movements make important advances yet face significant tensions as they craft doctrinal claims that operate within competing models of pluralism
The Family\u27s Constitution
Full text linkMany of the leading constitutional issues of our day implicate family law matters. Modern substantive due process is replete with questions of family law. Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Lawrence v. Texas raise issues of family formation, intimate relationships, and reproductive decision making. Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley address the contours of marriage. Moore v. City of East Cleveland protects the extended family. Stanley v. Illinois, Lehr v. Robertson, and Michael H. v. Gerald D. consider the rights of unmarried fathers. Troxel v. Granville protects a parent\u27s childrearing decisions. Modern equal protection law, too, features a significant number of family law issues. A string of cases beginning in the late 1960s extends rights to nonmarital parent-child relationships. Leading sex equality decisions dating back to the 1970s render rights and responsibilities regarding marriage and childrearing formally gender neutral. Most recently, decisions on the rights of samesex couples to marry-namely, United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges-recognize the families formed by gays and lesbians on grounds of equal protection and due process. These cases are thought to represent a relatively straightforward account of the relationship between family law and constitutional law
The Constitution of Parenthood
No full textThis Article challenges the conventional assumption that the Constitution protects only biological parent-child relationships and makes an affirmative case for constitutional protection for nonbiological parents. Family law in a growing number of states legally recognizes nonbiological parents in a range of families-including nonmarital families, families headed by same-sex couples, and families formed through assisted reproduction. But in some states, nonbiological parents who have not adopted are treated as legal strangers to their children. When these parents turn to the Constitution to assert a liberty interest in their parent-child relationship, they find no relief. Courts conclude that only biological parents possess a right to parental recognition protected by the Due Process Clause. This biological understanding of constitutional parenthood often rests on a reading of Supreme Court precedents from the 1970s and 1980s involving the rights of unmarried fathers and the status of foster parents. This Article revisits those precedents-both to show that they present a more complicated approach to parenthood than conventionally assumed and to make clear the ways in which they are in tension with more recent constitutional commitments. Rather than elaborate a biological approach to parenthood, the Court's decisions on unmarried fathers and foster parents view parenthood as a social practice. Even as these precedents provide useful insights about parenthood's social dimensions, they are outdated. Decided decades ago, these decisions condone forms of inequality that now appear constitutionally suspect. Since they were decided, legal understandings of the family have shifted significantly. The Court itself has contributed to the changing legal landscape through its decisions on the constitutional rights of same-sex couples-who ordinarily include nonbiological parents.
Today, insights, principles, and values observable in constitutional precedents on parenthood and the family point toward a liberty interest in parental recognition that reaches nonbiological parents. To show how, this Article turns to contemporary familylaw
developments. Modern family law takes from constitutional precedents important insights about parenthood and yet updates the meanings and implications of those precedents. Family law's functional turn has featured the vindication of nonbiological parent-child bonds based in part on interpretations of constitutional decisions on unmarried fathers, foster parents, and same-sex couples. In valuing established parent child bonds in marital and nonmarital families, in different-sex and same-sex couples, and
for men and women, family-law authorities have found support in the Court's decisions but have taken those decisions in more inclusive and egalitarian directions. Even as this functional vision of parenthood has arisen as a formal matter in family law, it reflects and extends important constitutional commitments in ways that shed light on the parent child relationships that merit recognition as a matter of due process. Ultimately, constitutional understandings of parenthood may evolve in light of insights from family law. This Article's examination of the law of parenthood contributes to an account of the dialogic relationship between family law and constitutional law-demonstrating how family-law authorities develop approaches to the family that draw on and apply constitutional principles in ways constitutional decisionmakers may eventually adopt
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Constitutional Change, Courts, and Social Movements
Full text linkIn Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World, Professor Jack Balkin furnishes a positive account of constitutional change, advances a normative vision of the relationship between popular mobilizations and evolving constitutional principles, and develops an interpretive theory aimed at fulfilling the Constitution\u27s promise. Rather than take an internal perspective that asks how courts alter constitutional doctrine, Balkin decenters adjudication and instead views the role of courts in constitutional change through the lens of social movements. In doing so, he convincingly exposes the feedback loop between social movements and courts: courts respond to claims and visions crafted by movements, and court decisions in turn shape the claims and visions of those movements and alter the political terrain on which those movements operate. By placing social movements, rather than courts, at the center of his analysis, Balkin ultimately redeems courts, demonstrating their lively, legitimate, and contingent role in the process of constitutional and social change. In doing so, he challenges influential constitutional scholarship that takes a generally pessimistic view of courts
Before Marriage: The Unexplored History of Nonmarital Recognition and Its Relationship to Marriage
No full textIn the wake of the celebration of the U.S. Supreme Court\u27s decision in United States v. Windsor, it seems obvious that the LGBT movement is intent on securing marriage. But the relationship between LGBT advocacy and marriage was not always so clear. In fact, before the movement began to make explicit claims to marriage in the 1990s, leading advocates engaged in a vigorous debate about whether to seek marriage. This debate went beyond mere strategic disagreement and instead focused on ideological differences regarding the role of marriage and its relationship to LGBT rights, family diversity, and sexual freedom. Those opposing the turn to marriage urged the movement to continue pursuing nonmarital rights and recognition, including domestic partnership, as a way to decenter marriage for everyone. Critics of today\u27s marriage equality advocacy point to this history as a lost alternative past worthy of reclamation. Today\u27s marriage-centered movement, they argue, channels relationships into traditional forms and marginalizes those who fail to fit the marital mold. Instead of continuing down this road, these critics contend, movement advocates should recover their earlier roots and embrace pluralistic models of family and intimacy outside of marriage. This Article challenges the assumptions that structure today\u27s debate over the role of marriage in LGBT advocacy. It does so by uncovering the centrality of marriage even during the time when LGBT advocates worked entirely outside of marriage and built nonmarital regimes
- …
