The work that law schools and law journals have done in recent years to foster more diverse memberships is paying off with women taking the top editorial post of the flagship law journals at the highest-ranked schools in the country.

By Karen Sloan | January 21, 2020 at 03:52 PM

It’s a major moment for women at top law journals.

For the first time ever, female law students sit atop of the mastheads of the flagship law reviews at each of the top 16 law schools in the country, as ranked by U.S. News & World Report.

That’s a significant shift from 2012, when a study by the nonprofit group Ms. JD found that women comprised just 29% of top editors at the flagship journals housed at the top 50 law schools. Women made up 43% of all law review editors in 2012 and 45% of all law review members.

Editor-in-chief posts are the most competitive to get and one of the most prestigious credentials law students can put on their resume. Executive board positions, including editor-in-chief, are typically determined through elections among the law review membership, meaning editors are selected by their peers. The sweep of editor-in-chief spots by women among the T-14 law schools has people talking.

“It speaks well to the progress that many law schools have made toward cultivating a more hospitable environment for women, people of color, and first-generation law students,” said Melissa Murray, a professor at New York University School of Law. “But credit should not go to law schools alone. The law reviews deserve credit as well.”

Murray noted that many law journals have taken a hard look at whether they are fostering environments that include traditionally underrepresented students and encourage them to take on leadership roles.

The flagship law reviews with women now at the helm include those at Yale, Stanford, and Harvard, and extend down the law school rankings to the University of Texas, at No. 16.

The advancement of women in law review leadership positions has been a growing focus since the 2012 study spotlighted the dearth of women in editor-in-chief roles. The Cornell Law Review made headlines last year when it elected an all-female executive board, believed to be the first in history for a flagship journal at a top law school. That’s just one example of how women are moving toward parity with men in the legal profession, Cornell Law Review Editor-in-Chief Lauren Kloss said in a 2019 interview, after she was elected.

“I think we are seeing women professors advance in legal academia,” Kloss said. “We see which firms are announcing all-female partner classes. I think we feel that we are a part of that movement. That women are a strong force in the legal field and will continue to prove themselves.”

The proliferation of women leading law reviews will be the subject of a panel discussion at a daylong conference honoring the advancement of women in the legal profession hosted by Duke Law School on Feb. 3 in Washington. The conference will also include panels featuring women practitioners; law deans; and judges. The session of jurists features U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg; Judge Pam Harris of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; Judge Nina Pillard of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia; and Judge Sri Srinivasan, also of the D.C. Circuit.

The sweep of women editor-in-chief at top law schools won’t extend into the 2020-21 academic year, however. Many law reviews have yet to hold executive board elections, but the Yale Law Journal has already selected a male student—Alexander Nabavi-Noori—as its next editor-in-chief.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4427130&forum_id=2#39470311)

As usual, more lib word-salad. The story says nothing about people of color or first-generation law students. How does women advancing in any way relate to these other groups. Libs just vomit out these things because that's what they are supposed to.

"The Cornell Law Review made headlines last year when it elected an all-female executive board, ... That’s just one example of how women are moving toward parity with men in the legal profession"

For lawyers they sure don't understand what "parity" means.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4427130&forum_id=2#39470387)

cr you see this all the time, it's some weird reflexive tic libs have

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4427130&forum_id=2#39470481)

and i'd like to know a bit more about the identity of the 16 women.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4427130&forum_id=2#39470509)

Although I have met more than a few great female lawyers, practically all of the terrible lawyers I have had the displeasure of encountering were women. Worse, female lawyers have a far easier road to achieve judgeships, clerkships, etc. due to the generally shitlib nature of the legal profession, and the insistence of government actors to promote "diversity". Privileged white men are aging out of these positions, and they are being replaced by women.

Over the next 20-30 years, there will be an explosion of female judges. Some of these judges will be reasonable, and some will be great. But a large number of them will be ill-tempered, and almost all of them will be indoctrinated in shitlib politics. You can expect to see greater and greater punishments for men accused of DV and rape. You can expect to see less scrutiny applied to aggressive and unethical police and prosecution practices by the judiciary. You can expect even more men to get utterly fucked in domestic relations, custody, and divorce proceedings.

Right now, men face tremendous structural and cultural impediments in daily life, which women simply do not face. The only place where younger, less-privileged men stand anything resembling a fair hearing is in front of a thoughtful, temperamental judge. As more women enter the judiciary at all levels, court proceedings will begin to resemble campus rape tribunals - because the women who enter the judiciary will have been raised in a culture of campus rape tribunals.

Those 16 EICs, and all the other women who have taken over practically every aspect of law school over the past 15-20 years, will one day be the worst, most shitlib Hawaii judges you can imagine.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4427130&forum_id=2#39472551)

XO2020

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4427130&forum_id=2#39472644)

Can we get a list of these, for reference? Off the top of my head I can think of family court bias (child custody, alimony, etc.), affirmative action in hiring, hypergamous world of app dating. Are those the main ones or did you have others in mind

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4427130&forum_id=2#39473127)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4427130&forum_id=2#39473283)

Childhood:

- Public education administered to cater to girls' learning style, and suspect of physical play, personal experimentation, etc.

- Removal of male role models from a significant portion of homes due to the divorce system, which favors child placement with women.

- Oversocialization & overprotection of children, reducing the opportunities for boys to engage in "rough and tumble" play, which is important for boys' development.

- Reclassification of normal male "rough and tumble" play as bullying, subject to punitive action in schools.

- Reduction of gym classes, and sports teams due to concerns about bullying, brain injury, etc. These physical and team-based activities are important to boys' development.

- Reduction of strong male role models in media and popular entertainment, and an overriding focus on "strong, empowered" female heroes, who prevail over villains who are almost exclusively male.

Early adulthood:

- Immersion in educational institutions which perpetually demean the achievements, needs, and significance of men in favor of feminist indoctrination.

- Constant threat of life-ending accusations of sexual impropriety in campus tribunals.

- Hypergamous world of app dating.

- Discriminatory affirmative action in the most lucrative college majors, including engineering, economics, and the sciences.

Adulthood:

- Family and criminal court bias.

- Bias with respect to access to medical access, funding of research for diseases which are unique to men vs. women (compare the public funding of breast cancer research vs. prostate cancer research, as one example).

- Disparity in reproductive rights - women have access to far more contraceptive options than men, and have the ability to terminate a pregnancy even after conception. Men are entirely vulnerable to women's reproductive choices.

- Significant disparity in public services available to low-SES men vs. women in practically every sector: There are no battered men's shelters. There are 10+ homeless men living on the street for every woman.

- Disparity in hiring for entry-level white collar positions due to AA in these jobs.

- Significant disparity in overall workplace fatalities.

- Significant disparity in suicide, accompanied by most public mental health resources allocated to women.

- Mandatory participation in the selective service system, and potential to be drafted during time of war.

- Pay disparity between similarly situated single, childless men and women in their 20s (women actually get paid more than men prior to having children.)

- Significant disparity in economic power, with women accounting for roughly 80% of consumer purchases.

- Old-timey gendered obligations in dating and relationships with women, which have changed for women, but not for men. (Who pays for dinner? Who pays for drinks? Who gives up the seat on the bus?)

- Significant disparity in 180s and blank bumps between male poasters and fempoasters.

Retirement/Death:

- Men die on average 7-8 years earlier than women.

- As a result of the above death statistics, women derive far more benefit from the Social Security system, the pension system, and personal savings (including the personal savings of their dead spouses).

- Men's early deaths are closely linked to the lives that men live - the lack of social services, medical services, the fact that men maintain social obligations to provide for their families and therefore live more stressful lives, are all contributing factors to early mortality.

There are far, far more issues than I could list here, and MRA groups have literal books filled with legitimate grievances. But this brings me to the key, final issue which men face which women never will:

Nobody gives a shit about men's problems. Men with problems are weak. Men are only valuable insofar as they are productive tax-payers and providers for women. And any man who complains about these issues is perceived as a baby, a whiner, a misogynist, or a bigot.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4427130&forum_id=2#39473335)

I would add one more to the very beginning of the list: in first-world countries, it's legal to mutilate a baby boy's genitals without his consent, while anyone who did this to a girl would be imprisoned.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4427130&forum_id=2#39474809)

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-for-every-100-girls-women/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4427130&forum_id=2#39474831)

http://www.scribd.com/document/440767184/For-Every-100-Girls

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4427130&forum_id=2#39475503)

CONGRATULATIONS !

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4427130&forum_id=2#39472704)

That said, men need to plan accordingly and do whatever they can to avoid these court systems; especially as they relate to sexual assault, divorce, reproductive rights, and child custody. Truth be told, many women despise men and want men in shackles.

Despite what some of you may think, excluding close female relatives, women are generally not allies.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4427130&forum_id=2#39475563)