The Masculinity Mandate: #MeToo, Brett Kavanaugh, and Christine Blasey Ford

In fall 2019, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings involving Dr. Christine Blasey Ford\u27s testimony about then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh\u27s alleged behavior at a high school party gone awry. This essay uses identity performance and multidimensional masculinities theories to analyze the hearings, specifically to consider the gender, race, and class performances of the participants, and how partisans and non-partisans interpreted those performances. This examination demonstrates that the judgment concerning masculinity and femininity performances and their appropriateness is, to a certain extent, in the eye of the beholder. By the same token, public interpretations are not arbitrary. Rather, at least in this context, power differentials based on gender, race, and class appear to have influenced the public reaction to these performances and the interpretation of what constitutes appropriate masculine and feminine behavior. Moreover, the perceived appropriateness of these behaviors governs who the winners and losers will be. In this case, upper-middleclass white males won while women of all races and classes lost. Although it was not immediately obvious how class and race influenced the process because both main participants are of a similar class and race, deeper analysis demonstrates that white, upper-middle class, male power affects how the participants were perceived and judged. Class, race, and gender were certainly present in the calculation of winners and losers. Part II of this essay establishes the theoretical basis for my analysis, explaining masculinities, identity performance, and multidimensional theories. Part III uses these theories to analyze the various performances as well as the public reactions to those performances. Finally, this essay concludes that gender, race, and class affect judgments in this context, and the Senate should write rules to assure that a fairer and more accurate process takes place in the future in the hopes of breaking the strangleholds of traditional gendered, raced, and classed power

Design bugs out: a real world investigation of hospital bedside chairs and commodes

This paper was presented at the the 17th World Congress on Ergonomics (IEA’09) in August 2009, Beijing, China.Healthcare Associated Infections (HCAIs) can affect both patients and healthcare workers. They are difficult to treat, and can complicate illnesses, cause distress, and even lead to death. HCAIs are also a huge financial burden on the UK’s National Health Service (NHS). Aiming to identify and fast-track the implementation of new technologies and design-led innovations to combat HCAIs, the UK’s Department of Health (DH), in partnership with the Purchasing and Supply Agency of the NHS and the Design Council, launched the Challenge ‘Design Bugs Out’ in September 2008. The design challenge invited teams of designers and manufacturers to redesign hospital furniture and equipment to make them easier to keep clean, and so help reduce patients’ exposure to HCAIs and improve their hospital experience. As a research partner of a winning team PearsonLloyd Design Consultancy and Kirton Healthcare Manufacturing) selected to answer this Challenge, the Human-Centred Design Institute (HCDI) at Brunel University conducted intensive design research focusing on bedside chairs and on-ward commodes. The research findings were used to inform the design process of the ward objects, towards the delivery of working prototypes in April 2009, to be displayed in a public exhibition and then taken on a national tour of selected hospitals for trial. This paper reports on the research process, aiming to extract useful information on a human-centred approach to healthcare design innovation.The Design Council, Department of Healt

Intersectional Cohorts, Dis/ability, and Class Actions

This Article occupies the junction of dis/abilities studies and critical race theory. It joins the growing commentary analyzing the groundbreaking lawsuit by Compton, California students and teachers against the Compton school district under federal disability law and seeking class certification and injunctive relief in the form of teacher training, provision of counselors, and changed disciplinary practices. The federal district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss but also denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and class certification, resulting in prolonged settlement talks. The suit is controversial because it seeks to address the trauma suffered by Black and Latinx students in poor, violence-torn inner-city communities by characterizing the students as disabled.The Article disagrees with legal scholarship thus far, which posits that using disability law to help these students both stigmatizes them and ignores current disability law’s focus on individual claims. It asserts that concerns about stigma are outweighed by the potential to assist distressed students. Doctrinally, it contends the concern for individual claims is overstated because one major goal of disability law is to remove social barriers to the flourishing of people with dis/abilities. By analyzing the social construction model of dis/abilities implicit within current law, this Article shows that group-based claims like those of the Compton students are a valid use of the class certification power.This Article’s key contribution to the dis/abilities studies and critical race literatures is the creation of a theory of “intersectional cohorts.” The members of intersectional cohorts share similar self-identities, attributed identities, and identity performances to such extent that it is appropriate to think of them as a discrete and cohesive group in relation to a particular issue. This is a way to explore the meso-level of discrete and cohesive social groups who share multiple identities without devolving into a micro-level theory of each individual or essentializing identities through a macro-level theory of broad social groups.Understanding poor Black and Latinx students in violence-torn neighborhoods as an intersectional cohort shows they have sufficiently shared experiences and responses to their environment to presume they constitute a class that should be certified in the Compton suit and in other similar lawsuits. This approach is supported by the scientific research on Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and their relationship to complex trauma and disability. We hope this analysis will serve as a model for future theoretical and applied analysis of intersectional cohorts, especially with respect to dis/abilities

The New Old Legal Realism

Do the decisions of appellate courts matter in the real world? The American judicial system, legal education, and academic scholarship are premised on the view that they do. The authors want to reexamine this question by taking the approach advocated by the original Legal Realists. The current project seeks to add to our knowledge of the relevance of case law by focusing on an area that has received little examination: how pronouncements about employment discrimination law by appellate courts translate into understandings and behavior at the ground level. As our lens, we use evidence of how people talk about the relevance of changes in the law. This new Old Legal Realist perspective suggests that social and economic factors play a more important role than case law in outcomes on the ground. Cases cannot have an impact, if the local social and economic variables are not aligned in a fashion that allows the impact to occur

Reconsidering Legal Regulation of Race, Sex, and Sexual Orientation

Reviewing Sonu Bedi, Beyond Race, Sex and Sexual Orientation: Legal Equality without Identity; Devon W. Carbodo and Mitu Gulati, Acting White?: Rethinking Race in Post-Racial America; Ruthann Robson, Dressing Constitutionally: Hierarchy, Sexuality, and Democracy from Our Hairstyles to Our Shoes; and John D. Skrentny, After Civil Rights: Racial Realism in the New American Workplace