Crawford Pickens interview, 14 January 2025

Crawford Pickens talks about moving from Alabama to Cleveland in 1973 to find better employment. He worked at Forest City Foundry and Ohio Aluminum before retiring in July 2021. Before retiring, he maintained plots at a community garden on Sandusky Avenue and E. 112th Street. In 2001, he maintained two plots at the Schaffer-Miles Garden before becoming the garden manager there. In this interview, Pickens discusses what he knows of the garden’s history, the challenges of operating the garden, and what he hopes for the garden’s future

Diabetes Behind Bars: Dissecting Diabetic Deliberate Indifference and Delivering Inmates a More Workable Standard Under the Fourth Amendment

This Note examines the inadequacies of the current Eighth Amendment framework in safeguarding the constitutional rights of diabetic inmates. It contends that the subjective element of the two-pronged Eighth Amendment claim—often used to assess deliberate indifference—leads to unfair and inconsistent outcomes. To address these shortcomings, this Note draws inspiration from the objective analysis employed in Fourth Amendment excessive force claims, specifically referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Graham v. Connor. This new framework eliminates the subjective element, and instead replaces it with three objective factors courts should consider when evaluating Eighth Amendment violations related to diabetic medical care. Through legal analysis and application of the new proposal, this Note argues that this departure from the current framework is crucial to ensure that the Eighth Amendment effectively prohibits cruel and unusual punishment for diabetic inmates. Ultimately, the proposed shift in legal framework aims to uphold inmates’ constitutional right to healthcare; a repeated guarantee outlined in various cases decided by the United States Supreme Court

Splitting Equality: Access to Gender-Affirming Care in the Fourth Circuit

This Note critically examines the evolving legal landscape surrounding transgender individuals\u27 access to gender-affirming care in the United States, focusing on two pivotal cases before the Fourth Circuit: Kadel v. Folwell (North Carolina) and Fain v. Crouch (West Virginia). These cases present a constitutional and statutory challenge to the exclusion of medically necessary gender-affirming care from state health plans, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Note contextualizes these lawsuits within a broader historical trajectory of transgender rights, highlighting legal and cultural milestones that have shaped access to care and recognition. Drawing on precedent, including Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board and Bostock v. Clayton County, the analysis explores how gender identity is legally understood through the lens of sex discrimination. It further considers the persuasive value of medical consensus on the necessity of gender-affirming care, as endorsed by major health organizations. The paper identifies the legal inconsistencies and discriminatory rationales employed by states to deny this care and critiques the sociopolitical underpinnings of such exclusions. By comparing the different factual and legal circumstances of Kadel and Fain, the Note argues that the Fourth Circuit has an opportunity to affirm constitutional protections for transgender persons. It proposes a legally and politically viable middle ground: requiring states to provide coverage for non-surgical interventions such as medication and psychotherapy, thereby upholding basic standards of care while navigating judicial restraint. Ultimately, the Note underscores that the outcome of these joined en banc proceedings will significantly influence future litigation, legislative efforts, and the lived realities of transgender individuals. In doing so, it advocates for a legal framework rooted in equality, medical necessity, and the dignity of all persons under the law

Connect with Faculty Featuring Dr. Rachel Lovell, Presenting: The Problem of Untested Sexual Assault Kits and Gender Differences in Those Seeking Assistance Post Assault

Connect with CSU Faculty Featuring: Rachel E. Lovell, PhD, Associate Professor of Criminology and Director of the Criminology Research Center Levin College of Public Affairs and Education Cleveland State University Presenting: The Problem of Untested Sexual Assault Kits and Gender Differences in Those Seeking Assistance Post Assault Tuesday, November 4, 2025 11:30 am – 12:30 p.m. Location: Michael Schwartz Library 1st floor, Connection Lounge Dr. Lovell will provide an overview of the problem of untested sexual assault kits—why there were so many untested sexual assault kits, what is being done to address this issue, and provide suggestions for moving forward. Additionally, the presentation will detail findings from two recently published studies detailing gender differences in those who seek sexual assault kit exams post-sexual assault. About Dr. Lovell Rachel E. Lovell, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Criminology and Director of the Criminology Research Center at the Levin College of Public Affairs and Education at Cleveland State University in Cleveland, Ohio. A criminologist and methodologist, she specializes in applied research and evaluation, collaborating closely with criminal justice agencies, community organizations, and public and social service systems. Her work focuses on issues including sexual assault, sexual assault kits, human trafficking, intimate partner violence, and gun violence. An accomplished scholar, Dr. Lovell has secured over $7 million in external funding since 2013, published numerous peer-reviewed articles and book chapters, and recently served as lead editor of the monograph Sexual Assault Kits and Reforming the Response to Rape. This is a free event open to CSU faculty, staff, and students; Friends of the Library; and CSU Alumni

Multidisciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity in Law

This article aims to dismantle walls and barriers, tracking the contemporary trends in law that acknowledge the significant value of interdisciplinary cooperation. We strive to explore how collaborative contemplation on a legal issue, incorporating two or more academic and practical viewpoints, can enhance interactions across multiple disciplines, improve comprehension of intricate problems, and guide interventions. Ultimately, such collaborations can yield an innovative and synergistic knowledge base, fostering the development of new theories capable of explaining complex human phenomena from varied perspectives. These diverse vantage points are expected to generate superior and more fitting outcomes than those achievable by the field of law operating in isolation