Press Prudence, Nazi Student Orders, and Jim Crow

This Article discusses the 1931 decision of the Austrian Constitutional Court in which it was held that rules promulgated by the University of Vienna, which aimed to separate the student body into four ethnically-defined nations, were invalid. The Article notes the striking similarities of the case to Brown v. Board of Education and other American equal protection education cases. In examining the decision the article states that in declining to uphold an equivalent to the \u27separate but equal\u27 doctrine, the Austrian justices did for Austrian law what Plessy had failed to do for US law thirty five years before. The Austrian Court held that the University violated constitutional principles of equality and that they had no authority to do so

Remembering Brown: A Tribute to John Hope Franklin

On March 27, 2008, the Duke Forum for Law & Social Change and the Office of the Dean co-sponsored a Symposium entitled, “Remembering Brown.” The panelists discussed both their experiences working to desegregate public schools and their perspectives on whether the aspiration of Brown v. Board of Education has been fulfilled

Remembering Brown: A Tribute to John Hope Franklin

On March 27, 2008, the Duke Forum for Law & Social Change and the Office of the Dean co-sponsored a Symposium entitled, “Remembering Brown.” The panelists discussed both their experiences working to desegregate public schools and their perspectives on whether the aspiration of Brown v. Board of Education has been fulfilled

The Disjunction Between Judge Edwards and Professor Priest

With characteristic vigor, Judge Harry Edwards, in his essay The Growing Disjunction Between Legal Education and the Legal Profession, has censured the law schools and, secondarily, the bar, for what he sees as profoundly disturbing trends pulling academics and practitioners farther and farther apart. Judge Edwards\u27 censure is not proffered off the cuff. He has carefully polled his former law clerks on their perceptions of their law school years and of their postclerkship professional experiences - whether in private practice, in government, or in teaching. In the text and footnotes of his essay, Judge Edwards quotes his law clerks\u27 responses in considerable and very interesting detail. These responses, largely if not uniformly confirmatory of Judge Edwards\u27 own intuitions, constitute much of his ammunition. For my part, I must confess that, although I share certain of Judge Edwards\u27 concerns, I do not view the American legal landscape with the same degree of alarm