Neat format. Audio interview. Prof interviews Prof.
In this outing, Professor Richard Albert, Boston College Law School speaks with Professor Vanessa MacDonnell of the University of Ottawa (English common law) about her new (comparative) work on the role of government in advancing and securing constitutional rights. The abstract of the paper (forthcoming in the UTLJ), is available on SSRN here. I am teaching constitutional law at the moment and am consider how this might enrich the introduction to the Charter materials (next semester) and encourage students to think more broadly about the roles the state plays beyond violator-of-rights. Not to mention the ways it may affect my own thinking as an “equality advocate”.
Interesting report from the World Bank using empirical measures to ask what governments are doing in terms of “removing barriers to economic inclusion”.
Measuring how regulations and institutions differentiate between women and men in ways that may affect women’s incentives or capacity to work or to set up and run a business provides a basis for improving regulation. Women,
Business and the Law objectively measures such legal differentiations on the basis of gender in 141 economies around the world, covering six areas: accessing institutions, using property, getting a job, providing incentives to work, building credit, and going to court. Within these six areas, we examined 21 legal differentiations for unmarried women and 24 legal differentiations for married women for a total of 45 gender differences, covering aspects such as being able to get a job, sign a contract, register a business, open a bank account, own property, work at night or in all industries, and retire at the same age as men. This is a simplified measure of legal differentiation that does not capture the full extent of the gender gap, nor does it indicate the relative importance of each aspect covered, but does provide a basic understanding of the prevalence of gender based legal differences in each economy
h/t Osgoode PhD student Shanthi Senthe for the link and suggestion!
Disparities in Asylum Adjudication and Proposals for Reform
Philip G. Schrag & Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Commentary by Sean Rehaag
14 October 2010 (12:30pm – 2:20pm) 626 York Research Tower
Refreshments will be served
Immigration law practitioners in the United States have long suspected that the likelihood of winning asylum depends in large measure on which asylum officer or immigration judge is assigned to adjudicate a case. Following the presentation, Sean Rehaag will present comparative data on the Canadian refugee determination system, focusing on the large differences between the US and Canadian refugee determination systems in the effects of adjudicator gender on refugee claim outcomes.
My Osgoode colleague who will be provide commentary, Sean Rehaag, forwarded this invitation. He writes:
While the talk is about empirical research on refugee determinations, one of the key focuses of [my]commentary will be on the difference in the effects of the gender of judges on refugee claim outcomes in Canada and the United States.
“It turns out that, in the US, female refugee adjudicators have much higher grant rates than male adjudicators, leading some scholars to suggest that these striking differences provide support for the contention that male and female judges approach judging in distinctly gendered manners (see e.g. Carrie Menkel-Meadow, “Asylum in a Different Voice? Judging Immigration Claims and Gender” in Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz & Philip Schrag (eds.), Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication and Proposals for Reform (New York: NYU Press, 2009) 202). However, in Canada the grant rates of male adjudicators are slightly higher than the rates for female adjudicators. One of the things that we will be discussing is why the effect of adjudicator gender is so striking in the US, but is only relatively small in Canada — and what this might mean for those who see evidence of essential gender differences in judging in the US data.”