Articles

View by Volume

Filter

  • To Yick Wo, Thanks for Nothing!: Citizenship for Filipino Veterans

    In this Note, the Author uses science fiction novelist Robert Heinlein's model of citizenship as an analytical framework for examining the historical treatment of Filipino veterans of World War II. The Author Heinlein's conception of citizenship in Starship Troopers was one in which a person can acquire citizenship only through a term of service in the state's armed forces. Similarly, the United States provided immediate eligibility for citizenship to World War II era foreign veterans, but it effectively excluded Filipino veterans from this benefit. The Author examines how the plenary power doctrine in immigration law, has quashed legal challenges by Filipino veterans and created a structural imbalance that not only allows but encourages similar inequities. The Author also notes that while Congress has enacted remedial legislation, this delayed conferral of citizenship without accompanying veteran's benefits is both inadequate and incomplete. Accordingly, the Author suggests that the plenary power doctrine, in the context of the Filipino veterans, must give way to textual reading of the U.S. Constitution which places an express limit of geographic uniformity in the area of naturalization. Drawing from the use of reparations in immigration policy, the Author recommends that further legislative remedies be enacted to ensure that Filipino veterans and their descendants are provided a fair and equitable remedy for their service to the United States.

  • Sense and Nonsense: Standing in the Racial Districting Cases as a Window on the Supreme Court’s View of the Right to Vote

    Congressional redistricting draws the lines within which battles for political power will be fought. It is no surprise, therefore, that the redistricting process has long been the subject of social debate and legal dispute. The Supreme Court has not been able to resolve this dispute, in part, because the Justices have conflicting interpretations of the right to vote. While some Justices view voting as an individual right, others maintain that voting is correctly perceived as group right. This lack of consensus regarding the definition of the right to vote has led to a confusing articulation of the harm implicated by recent districting cases, and of the identification of which citizens can seek redress for that harm. In this Article, the Author provides an overview of modern standing doctrine and focuses on the Court's application (or non- application) in districting cases of the requirement that plaintiffs show an injury-in-fact in order to have standing to sue. It is noted that in recent districting cases, the Court has allowed standing for the type of generalized grievance for which the Court has consistently denied standing in other areas of law. This deviation from established standing doctrine is often criticized as nonsensical. The Author however, argues that this new standing doctrine can only be explained and understood, when limited to voting cases, as reflective of the individual justices' interpretations of the right to vote. The Author concludes that the atypical standing doctrine articulated in the recent districting cases underscores the need for the Court to develop and employ a richer conception of the right to vote that encompasses the goal of achieving a politically fair system.

  • The Content of Our Characterizations

    This essay suggests both further amplification of Yamamoto's guidelines for critical race praxis and, more importantly, recommends their application to the analysis and development of progressive race theory itself.

  • Facing History, Facing Ourselves: Eric Yamamoto and the Quest for Justice

    Review of Interracial Justice: Conflict and Reconciliation in Post-Civil Rights America by Eric Yamamoto

  • Transnational Critical Race Scholarship: Transcending Ethnic and National Chauvinism in the Era of Globalization

    Eric Yamamoto's article, Critical Race Praxis: Race Theory and Political Lawyering Practice in Post-Civil Rights America, brings a needed perspective to scholarship seeking to place domestic social justice struggles within the context of a broader and more complex mix of forces at play. While Yamamoto does not highlight a critical transnational perspective in this particular article, he writes from a perspective that presumes transnational analysis is essential in making sense of the socio-economic and political forces affecting our lives as individuals and members of multiple, intersecting communities. The local, the national, and the international are inextricably bound and present in all his work. This article, as well as his larger body of works, helps puncture the self-satisfied attitude of American national exceptionalism, or superiority, that now so crudely bestrides the world.

  • From Tokenism to Emancipatory Politics: The Conferences and Meetings of Law Professors of Color

    In this paper, the author traces the history of the First National Meetings and conferences since 1969. In Part II, this paper explores the range of meetings and conferences which outlined the development of a proactive agenda for minority student and faculty inclusion within mainstream historically White legal institutions and the evolution of this agenda from one of access to an agenda of security, retention, and the advancement of legal theory and scholarship within and without the established academy. Part III chronicles the maturation of this tradition of independent meetings and conferences of professors of color into a network of legal education institutions promoting institutional, as well as ideological, pluralism. Finally, the concluding comments are devoted to an analysis of the two-fold function of this tradition of meetings and conferences: to combat the paradoxical isolation and heightened visibility of professors of color within historically White institutions and to generate legal theory responsive to the experiences of people of color.

  • Lawyering for Social Change: What’s a Lawyer to Do?

    This article analyzes two questions that are raised by Professor Yamamoto's provocative article. Part I argues that any significant transformation of the social structure of United States society is far more likely to occur through mass political movements than through litigation. Consequently, advocates of social change, especially those trained in law, should not expect too much reform from the courtrooms. They instead should consider how traditional legal action might complement and encourage-not replace-community activism and political involvement. Put simply, an exclusive focus on litigation will not accomplish fully the desired objective. Part II contends that attorneys' ethical duties to their clients limit lawyers' ability to shape the world in the ways they see fit. The constraints increase considerably after the attorney agrees to represent the client. At that point, she must zealously pursue the case in a way that furthers the client's best interests. The attorney primarily must represent the client, although she does have control over how to conduct that representation and may be able to shape the client's case in important ways. Combining these two points, I contend that the potential for social change through litigation is limited, and that the discretion of attorneys to promote change through traditional legal remedies is similarly constrained. Consequently, visionaries advocating social change must look well beyond these limited horizons.

  • Some Observations on Teaching from the “Pioneer” Generation

    A paper from the perspective of the "pioneer" generation.

  • The Compelling Need for Diversity in Higher Education

    The University of Michigan has brought together a team of leading scholars to serve as its experts in these cases to establish the basis for the University's argument that there is a compelling need for diversity in higher education. Their research is evidence that the use of race in higher education admissions is not only constitutional, but of vital importance to education and to our society.

  • Expert Report of Thomas J. Sugrue

    At the end of the twentieth century, the United States is a remarkably diverse society. It grows more diverse by the day, transformed by an enormous influx of immigrants from Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia. In an increasingly global economy, Americans are coming into contact with others of different cultures to an extent seen only in times of world war. Yet amidst this diversity remains great division. When the young black academic W.E.B. DuBois looked out onto America in 1903, he memorably proclaimed that "the problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line." Over the last one hundred years, that color line has shifted but not disappeared. The brutal regime of Jim Crow and lynching was vanquished by a remarkable grassroots movement for racial equality and civil rights. Overt expressions of racism are less common than they were a half century ago. Many nonwhite Americans, among them African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans, are better off than their forbears. Despite all of the gains of the past century, however, the burden of history still weighs heavily. Color lines still divide and separate Americans. Many Americans have managed diversity by avoiding it-by retreating into separate communities walled off by ignorance and distrust. In American public and private life, there are far too few opportunities to cross racial and ethnic barriers, to understand and appreciate differences, to learn from diversity rather than use it as an excuse for reproach and recrimination.