John Moore Jr.: \u3ci\u3eMoore v. City of East Cleveland\u3c/i\u3e and Children’s Constitutional Arguments

This Article is divided into three parts. First, I retell the story of Moore from John Jr.’s perspective and frame his potential claims. Second, I explore constitutional arguments under existing doctrine, using contemporary equal protection and substantive due process analyses. Finally, I suggest how a children’s rights perspective might be even more persuasive as a strategy for John Jr. as well as for achieving opportunity and equality on behalf of contemporary children living amid and affected by structural inequalities that impact their developmental capacity

ThermoPhyl : a software tool for selecting phylogenetically optimized conventional and quantitative-PCR taxon-targeted assays for use with complex samples

The ability to specifically and sensitively target genotypes of interest is critical for the success of many PCR-based analyses of environmental or clinical samples that contain multiple templates.Next-generation sequence data clearly show that such samples can harbour hundreds to thousands of operational taxonomic units; a richness which precludes the manual evaluation of candidate assay specificity and sensitivity using multiple sequence alignments. To solve this problem we have developed and validated a free software tool which automates the identification of PCR assays targeting specific genotypes in complex samples. ThermoPhyl uses user-defined target and non-target sequence databases to assess the phylogenetic sensitivity and specificity of thermodynamically optimised candidate assays derived from primer design software packages. ThermoPhyl takes its name from its central premise of testing Thermodynamically optimal assays for Phylogenetic specificity and sensitivity and can be used for two primer (traditional PCR) or two primers with an internal probe (e.g. TaqMan® qPCR) applications and potentially for oligonucleotide probes.Here we describe the use of ThermoPhyl for traditional PCR and qPCR assays. PCR assays selected using ThermoPhyl were validated using 454 pyrosequencing of a traditional specific PCR assay and with a set of four genotype-specific qPCR assays applied to estuarine sediment samples

Parentage at Birth: Birthfathers and Social Fatherhood

Deciding who should be a child\u27s legal parents at birth seems a simple task. Instinctively, the answer is the child\u27s biological mother and father. Historically, the answer would have been different depending on whether the child was born within a marriage or not; marriage trumped biology, at least with respect to fathers. A husband was generally presumed to be the father of a child born to his wife, even if there was no genetic connection. A number of changes have moved parentage away from the marital/genetic/patriarchal model that valued the marital family above genes or social fatherhood. Modern principles of parentage center on children\u27s well-being and social benefit. The question raised by our changed context is how we should define parentage consistent with those principles. This article focuses on parentage by looking exclusively at fathers

Women\u27s, Men\u27s and Children\u27s Equalities: Some Reflections and Uncertainties

One of the most striking ideas that Edward J. McCaffery suggests in Taxing Women is that equality, of the right sort, must be thought of in gendered terms. We must relinquish the idea that we can find or declare some neutral principle that will achieve the goal of equality, particularly with respect to the relationship between work and family, because the social context makes it impossible. Rather, we need to devise gender-specific strategies to achieve equality, even if they are couched in gender-neutral language. In my recent work examining single parent families, I have come to much the same conclusion: meaningful support for single parents, albeit extremely unlikely in the present political climate, requires separate consideration of the needs of single mothers and single fathers. The dominant patterns of work and family for single mothers and fathers are remarkably distinct; thus, their greatest needs are quite different. Single mothers most need economic support for nurturing, while single fathers most need cultural support for a reconstructed notion of fatherhood. McCaffery similarly argues that in order to achieve work-family equality, married women need to have their wage work taxed less, while married men need to have their wage work taxed more. This essay discusses some of the equality issues generated by McCaffery\u27s revolutionary yet modest gender-specific proposal for tax reform. In addition to considering some potential consequences for women and men, I also briefly consider the perspective of children. The essay proceeds in the following manner: Part I concentrates on McCaffery\u27s proposal to eliminate gender bias in the tax structure by taxing women less so that it is in accord with widely accepted notions of formal equality. Part II focuses on McCaffery’s argument that we should tax men more, precisely on account of their insistence on working as they always have and precisely until their behavior, in the aggregate, becomes as variable and susceptible to social and other pressures as women\u27s behavior is.” Part III discusses children’s equality and how the removal of gender bias and redistribution of workforce responsibility is presumed to be to children’s benefit. Finally, Professor Dowd concludes by recommending society takes a look at McCaffery\u27s proposal from the perspectives of women\u27s, men\u27s and children\u27s equality and consider how that complicates the analysis further by considering the separate interests of inherently connected groups

Liberty vs. Equality: In Defense of Privileged White Males

In this book review, Professor Dowd reviews Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws, by Richard A. Epstein (1992). First, Professor Dowd sets forth the thesis and arguments of Epstein’s book and explores her general criticisms in more detail. Next, she explores Epstein’s core argument pitting liberty against equality from two perspectives: that of the privileged white male and that of minorities and women. Finally, Professor Dowd argues that Epstein’s position cannot be viewed as an argument that most minorities or women would make, as it fails to take account of their stories

What Men?: The Essentialist Error of the End of Men

Many aspects of The End of Men are debatable. Among them is the critical issue of essentialism: do Rosin\u27s claims about women withstand scrutiny when we ask, “Is this representative of all women?” While women as a group may have progressed in some domains, they have remained the same or worse in others, and some women have not progressed at all. An even more significant shortcoming of The End of Men, however, is its essentialism about men. Rosin assumes a beginning, namely, men\u27s prior place of power and privilege in the domains she addresses. To assume that is true of all or most men ignores significant differences among men; it makes the argument one that predominantly focuses upon white middle- and upper-class men and women. Further, it ignores a fundamental aspect of male dominance: it is not only about the relationship of all men to all women, but just as important, it is about the relationship of men to each other. By rendering this male hierarchy invisible, Rosin excludes those men at the bottom of the hierarchy, suggesting a false, or at least limited, perspective on men\u27s position as a whole. Indeed, her argument reinforces male hierarchy by ignoring persistent subordination that benefits only those men at the top of the patriarchal heap. The end-of-men argument, then, recasts hegemony. To illustrate this point, I focus on one group of males excluded by this essentialism: black boys. Although Rosin\u27s argument implicitly is about adult males, the basis for some of her argument of decline in position or change in status is grounded in differentials between girls and boys. That argument assumes a historic and contemporary position of power, privilege, and dominance by men in critical domains. The subordinated position of many adult black men, grounded in a history of oppression and violent victimization, belies that claim. My argument here is that the contemporary position of adult black men is grounded in the undermining of opportunity and harsh repression of black boys. For most black boys, privilege and dominance in the sense Rosin assumes have almost never been present in their lives. Part I explores the context of the lives of black boys. I include in this description the systems that subordinate rather than support them. Although in theory these are “helping” systems, designed to assist children and families or to foster development, they actually function to collectively funnel children, and black boys in particular, toward outcomes that undermine opportunity. Part II considers where this context leads us and what is needed. I identify the levels of inequalities present in the lives of black boys. In addition, I suggest that the criminalization and stigmatization of black boys and men as “dangerous” serves continued white male hegemony. This conclusion challenges at a deep level the assumptions and arguments Rosin makes in The End of Men. Part III explores several theoretical frameworks that I believe could be helpful in ensuring social justice and individual opportunity for black boys. These include masculinities theory, critical race theory, and vulnerabilities theory. In addition to raising questions critical to the analysis of boys and men, these frameworks also suggest we should ask who benefits from the argument made in, and the attention given to, The End of Men

Children\u27s Equality: Strategizing a New Deal for Children

It is the ultimate gift to have one’s work trigger feedback, critique and challenge that expands and deepens the project. Professors Cooper, Huntington, McGinley, Silbaugh, and Woodhouse all have been sources of inspiration for me; their Articles and Essays in response to Reimagining Equality contribute both to my thinking and to the core focus of the book, the well-being, development and equality of all children, but also to the broad focus of this special issue on children and poverty. I am particularly grateful for their challenges and critiques, and their shared focus on the strategies I explore in the book, including statutory, constitutional, and legislative approaches

Asking the Man Question: Masculinities Analysis and Feminist Theory

Masculinities scholarship is an essential piece of feminist analysis and of critical equality analysis. It requires that we ask the man question to further unravel inequalities. This symposium marks one of several movements toward examining and considering what masculinities scholarship can offer. In this introduction, I suggest a framework of masculinities analysis and describe its relationship to feminist theory. First, I consider why we should ask the man question, and how we should ask it. Second, I explore how masculinities analysis might be useful in our examination of the man question. Masculinities work can be used to understand more clearly how male privilege and dominance are constructed. It can make us see harms suffered by boys and men that we have largely ignored. It may also reinforce and strengthen the commitment to antiessentialism in feminist theory. Exposing the complexities and multiplicity of masculinities leads toward understanding intersectional and multiple forms of discrimination more clearly. In this way, it is analogous to noticing that the issues and positions of all women are not the same and include instances of women subordinating women

The Metamorphosis Of Comparable Worth

The concept of comparable worth has as its factual predicate two typical characteristics of women\u27s employment: occupational concentration or segregation and significantly lower wages compared to those paid to men. What continues to be most troubling about this employment pattern is its stubborn persistence, despite the increased presence of women in the workforce and the existence for over two decades of legislation prohibiting sex discrimination in employment. The concept of comparable worth has provoked an outpouring of emotional rhetoric and scholarly analysis debating the concept’s viability and desirability. Rather than add to that debate, Professor Dowd traces the evolution of the framework within which comparable worth has developed as a legal doctrine. Furthermore, she identifies the unresolved issues and the strategic choices concerning those issues that may determine the future scope of the concept of comparable worth. The article is divided into three sections. First, it examines comparable worth litigation from its emergence in the 1970s through 1986. The article then focuses in detail on three recent opinions and their impact on the current framework of comparable worth litigation: the Ninth Circuit\u27s opinion reversing the landmark Washington State case; the Seventh Circuit\u27s opinion granting limited reinstatement of the complaint in the American Nurses Associations case; and the Supreme Court\u27s opinion analyzing historic wage discrimination in the Bazemore case. Finally, the article considers the future of the concept of comparable worth in light of the unresolved issues surrounding the scope of this legal doctrine and the impact of litigation strategy on the resolution of those issues