A group of F&M students traveled to Temple University's Beasley School of Law in Philadelphia on Tuesday to expose undergraduates and potential applicants to the inner-workings of one of Pennsylvania's premier legal education programs. Attendees took a tour of the law school, met with the Assistant Dean of Admissions and F&M alumni currently at Temple Law for an information session and Q&A, and sat in on two classes: Constitutional Law and Property Law.
The trip was designed to give underclassmen the opportunity to see what law school is like and to make a more educated evaluation of whether applying and, subsequently, attending law school is right for them. Upperclassmen had the chance to look at a regional institution that might be of particular interest to them as they are currently in the midst of the application process.
Beth Throne, F&M's Associate Vice President for Student and Post-Graduate Development (and an alum of both F&M and Temple Law) organized the trip and sees it as being the first of many such excursions to law schools throughout Pennsylvania and even New York and Washington, DC. There is no better way to learn about law school and to see if it's right for you than to visit the institution and experience its academic and social culture by interacting with students and sitting in on classes. Stay tuned for more opportunities for trips like this in the future which will only serve to benefit F&M's pre-law community.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Friday, February 17, 2012
Legal Film Series continues TONIGHT (2/17) with "Philadelphia"
The Legal Film Series at F&M (sponsored by the Center for Liberal Arts & Societyand the John Marshall Pre-Law Honor Society) continues TONIGHT, February 17, with "Philadelphia." The film will start at 7:30pm and will be showing in the Brooks College House Great Room. Click here for more information.
This screening is also part of the Multi-Faith Week of Meaning and Culture sponsored by the Office of Religious and Spiritual Life at F&M. Food will be provided and a discussion of the film will follow. All are welcome to attend.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Ware Institute summer internships offer legal service opportunities
From Susan Dicklitch, Ph.D., Associate Dean of the College, Professor of Government, and Director of the Ware Institute for Civic Engagement at Franklin & Marshall College:
During this nine-week program (June 6 - August 3) students work full-time in paid internships throughout Lancaster City and County in such areas as human services, county government, law and justice, education, health care and economic development.
Participants are paid a $3,300 stipend. Housing is not provided. Four days a week are spent at the internship site. Each Wednesday, the PSSI members come together as a team to participate in weekly seminars, engage in group discussion and reflection, and perform community service.
You can find links to agencies we've previously worked with on the PSSI web page. Placements are selected based on a combination of community requests and student interest with a focus on key community partners. As of today, we've received intern requests from the following agencies:
- Church World Service: working with resettled refugees assisting with cultural orientation
- Domestic Violence Services - Legal Clinic: work to support representation of domestic violence victims in a civil setting
- Domestic Violence Services: assisting at the shelter and with the children's component
- Fulton Theatre: a variety of options
- Lancaster General Health - Community Wellness: promotion of public health initiatives and focusing on deliverables for a Community Transformation Grant.
- Milagro House: work with senior service coordinator on delivering services and executive director on marketing and outreach.
- Project Access Lancaster Co. (PALCO): evaluating program
- Schreiber Pediatric Rehab Center: marketing and planning fundraising events
Follow the link below to the PSSI web page to find out more and for the link to the online application.
PSSI LINK to web page and application
You are also required to have a faculty or professional staff recommendation with your application. The link below should be given to the faculty or professional staff who will complete the online form on your behalf.
PSSI Faculty or Professional Staff Recommendation link
The deadline for submitting both the application AND the faculty recommendation is Friday, February 24 by midnight.
Friday, February 10, 2012
The Clinton Global Initiative University
For those interested in making a difference, or impacting the lives of others through innovative ideas, this is a great opportunity. The main focus areas for the program include: education, environment and climate change, poverty alleviation, peace and human rights, and public health. Applicants propose a commitment that they are passionate about, and are selected based on focus area. Here’s a great video that summarizes the program really well.
This year’s conference will be taking place at the George Washington University, on March 30th-April 1st, in which Jon Stewart, Chelsea Clinton, and President Bill Clinton will be making guest appearances. Christian Hartranft '12 Akbar Hossain '13 of the John Marshall Pre-Law Honor Society were selected as two of the participants for the Clinton Global Initiative 2012! They will be representing Franklin and Marshall College amongst hundreds of other student leaders and innovators from all over the world.
Jeffrey Toobin brings Ninth Circuit decision on Proposition 8 down to earth
Jeffrey Toobin, staff writer for The New Yorker on legal affairs, wrote a recent piece celebrating the civil rights progress made by the Ninth Circuit in its ruling striking down California's Proposition (the controversial ballot measure banning same-sex marriage), but he simultaneously clarified the decision by arguing that the specific nature of Judge Richard Steinhardt's decision made it far less sweeping (and therefore less monumental in its impact on the gay rights movement) than many had been led to believe.
Toobin suggests that the Ninth Circuit's decision was carefully "tethered" to the "unique facts" of Proposition 8 and this particular challenge to its constitutionality. He writes that Judge Reinhardt "did not rule, as he was surely tempted to do, that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, enforceable in every state in the union." Rather, he tailored his ruling to an issue specific to Proposition 8, which is that the people of California voted to strip a group of citizens of their rights, as guaranteed by the state constitution. It was primarily that fact, and not the fact that same-sex couples be allowed or not allowed to marry that drove the Ninth Circuit's decision.
Toobin says that Judge Reinhardt "crafted a narrow ruling, one that is unlikely to draw the attention of the Supreme Court of the United States." The conservatives on the high court may agree with him, but they don't necessarily form a majority of the justices. How this issue is resolved remains to be seen.
Toobin suggests that the Ninth Circuit's decision was carefully "tethered" to the "unique facts" of Proposition 8 and this particular challenge to its constitutionality. He writes that Judge Reinhardt "did not rule, as he was surely tempted to do, that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, enforceable in every state in the union." Rather, he tailored his ruling to an issue specific to Proposition 8, which is that the people of California voted to strip a group of citizens of their rights, as guaranteed by the state constitution. It was primarily that fact, and not the fact that same-sex couples be allowed or not allowed to marry that drove the Ninth Circuit's decision.
Toobin says that Judge Reinhardt "crafted a narrow ruling, one that is unlikely to draw the attention of the Supreme Court of the United States." The conservatives on the high court may agree with him, but they don't necessarily form a majority of the justices. How this issue is resolved remains to be seen.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Government and Law Internship Panel TONIGHT at F&M
Trying to find a summer internship in government or law? Be sure to stop by this discussion tonight in Bonchek College House!
The Government Club and John Marshall Pre-Law Honor Society at F&M will be co-hosting a panel for those interested in learning about legal and government orientated internship opportunities and how to go about getting them TONIGHT, February 8, at 6pm in Bonchek College House. The event will consist of a moderated panel of upperclassmen who have had a variety of internship experiences with a Q&A session, followed by an open forum to allow attendees to connect with individuals who might be able to help with their particular needs. Beth Throne, J.D., '95, Associate Vice President for Student and Post-Graduate Development, will also be there to answer any additional questions about institutional support for internship-seekers at F&M. More information can be found below.
Government and Law Internship Panel
Wednesday, February 8, 6:00pm (TONIGHT)
Bonchek College House Great Room
Wednesday, February 8, 6:00pm (TONIGHT)
Bonchek College House Great Room
Franklin & Marshall College
Moderator: Caitlin Krutsick '13
Panelists: Christian Hartranft '12 (interned for the U.S. House of Representatives and for the State of Delaware in the Office of the Public Defender), Laurie Barth '12 (interned in the White House in the Executive Office of the President and for NASA), Alexa Moser '12 (interned with the Republican National Committee), Amanda Duckworth '13 (participated in American University's Washington Semester program and interned in the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia)
This event is only open to members of the Franklin & Marshall College community. Pizza and soda will be provided. Sign up to attend by visiting the Facebook Event.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Appeals Court upholds (correctly) the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8
In a landmark decision today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a 2010 decision made by the Federal District Court of the Northern District of California which determined that Proposition 8 (a 2008 ballot measure approved by California voters which amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage - something which was previously allowed) was unconstitutional. The 2-1 ruling was made by a panel of judges from the circuit court, and it remains to be seen whether the proponents of Proposition 8 will request to be heard by the full court or appeal directly to the Supreme Court. If they decide the latter, there is little doubt that the highest court in the land will take the case and finally rule on an issue that has divided our politics and our society for decades.
The nullification of Proposition 8 by both the district and, now, circuit courts is based on the determination that the decision by California voters to deny same-sex couples the same classification with respect to "marriage" as heterosexual partners violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The ruling reads:
I am of the opinion that Proposition 8 and, indeed, any attempt to outlaw same-sex marriage is a blatant violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and its mandate that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This "Equal Protection Clause" has been called an embodiment of the Declaration of Independence's proclamation that "all men are created equal," and has served as one of the Constitution's most essential provisions since its addition to the document in 1868. As with most written law, however, its meaning and purview have been subject to continuous interpretation. Immediately following its passage, the Equal Protection Clause aided in the removal of various segregationist laws which banned African Americans from participating in basic civic functions. Many forms of segregation, however, remained intact, under the doctrine of "separate but equal" until it was thrown out by the Supreme Court in the mid 20th century.
The legal battle over same-sex marriage, in my view, is a modern day version of the civil rights struggles which ensued following the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War and beyond. In essence, we have created a "separate but equal" doctrine for marriage with the institution of civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other so-called "marriage equivalents" for same-sex couples.
In the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education which ended school segregation and determined that "separate but equal" was illogical and unconstitutional, the court stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal," which highlighted the essence of why that doctrine was so flawed. Separation implies inequality when it comes to elements as essential to our society as education, facilities usage - and marriage. Why separate when there is no practical reason for doing so unless one group is viewed as lesser than the other? The Supreme Court in Brown wrote that "the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group." I would argue that giving marriage licenses to heterosexual couples while granting civil unions to homosexual couples (or denying any legal recognition of their partnership at all) denotes a similar inferiority of the "homosexual group," (to use the same terms). Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit seems to agree when it writes that "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples."
Today's decision marks a milestone in the ongoing legal battle for equal rights in this country, not only for same-sex couples wishing to marry, but for all people denied "equal protection of the laws" in one form or another. The constitutional questions involved in this case are as large as the controversy surrounding the issue it seeks to address. Let's hope that when the issue of same-sex marriage eventually reaches the Supreme Court that the justices, like in Brown, once again position themselves on the correct side of history.
To read the full opinion on Proposition 8 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit click here.
The nullification of Proposition 8 by both the district and, now, circuit courts is based on the determination that the decision by California voters to deny same-sex couples the same classification with respect to "marriage" as heterosexual partners violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The ruling reads:
"All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of 'marriage,' which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committed relationships. Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution [particularly the Fourteenth Amendment] simply does not allow for 'laws of this sort'...the People may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry."Interestingly, the court's ruling in this case only applies to the specific circumstances surrounding Proposition 8 and California. The court was careful to point out that its ruling has no bearing on other states and on the broader question of the ultimate constitutionality of same-sex marriage in general (or any limitations thereof). This adds to the virtual certainty that the Supreme Court will hear the case so as to settle the question once and for all.
I am of the opinion that Proposition 8 and, indeed, any attempt to outlaw same-sex marriage is a blatant violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and its mandate that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This "Equal Protection Clause" has been called an embodiment of the Declaration of Independence's proclamation that "all men are created equal," and has served as one of the Constitution's most essential provisions since its addition to the document in 1868. As with most written law, however, its meaning and purview have been subject to continuous interpretation. Immediately following its passage, the Equal Protection Clause aided in the removal of various segregationist laws which banned African Americans from participating in basic civic functions. Many forms of segregation, however, remained intact, under the doctrine of "separate but equal" until it was thrown out by the Supreme Court in the mid 20th century.
The legal battle over same-sex marriage, in my view, is a modern day version of the civil rights struggles which ensued following the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War and beyond. In essence, we have created a "separate but equal" doctrine for marriage with the institution of civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other so-called "marriage equivalents" for same-sex couples.
In the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education which ended school segregation and determined that "separate but equal" was illogical and unconstitutional, the court stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal," which highlighted the essence of why that doctrine was so flawed. Separation implies inequality when it comes to elements as essential to our society as education, facilities usage - and marriage. Why separate when there is no practical reason for doing so unless one group is viewed as lesser than the other? The Supreme Court in Brown wrote that "the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group." I would argue that giving marriage licenses to heterosexual couples while granting civil unions to homosexual couples (or denying any legal recognition of their partnership at all) denotes a similar inferiority of the "homosexual group," (to use the same terms). Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit seems to agree when it writes that "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples."
Today's decision marks a milestone in the ongoing legal battle for equal rights in this country, not only for same-sex couples wishing to marry, but for all people denied "equal protection of the laws" in one form or another. The constitutional questions involved in this case are as large as the controversy surrounding the issue it seeks to address. Let's hope that when the issue of same-sex marriage eventually reaches the Supreme Court that the justices, like in Brown, once again position themselves on the correct side of history.
To read the full opinion on Proposition 8 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit click here.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Group working to protect workers' rights at F&M
A student group has begun an investigation at F&M into the treatment of employees of the college's custodial and food services staff, both employed by outside contractors Aramark and Sodexo. They are examining both college policies and Pennsylvania law and working to ensure that these contract employees are treated in accord with state and federal regulations (both Aramark and Sodexo have a history of workers' rights violations). Many of these employees do not receive benefits and experience very little job security. This project involves both legal research and a continued discussion of how workers are (and should be) treated by both society and the law.
Students interested in participating in this project should contact Laura Morse '12 at laura.morse@fandm.edu. The Workers' Rights Group also meets at 11:30am on Tuesdays in Stager Hall room 112.
Students interested in participating in this project should contact Laura Morse '12 at laura.morse@fandm.edu. The Workers' Rights Group also meets at 11:30am on Tuesdays in Stager Hall room 112.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)