Keeping the Underclass in Its Place

Now on SSRN, David Papke has another installment in his great series of articles on the American underclass.  The new article, “Keeping the Underclass in Its Place: Zoning, the Poor, and Residential Segregation,” explores (among other things) the role of law in maintaining class-based residential segregation.  Here is the abstract:

This article discusses the ways suburban zoning keeps the underclass out of the suburbs. The article begins by discussing the complex and sometimes contentious notion of an “underclass,” which became part of popular and political discourse in the United States in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This socio-economic group is defined not by race but rather by the group’s weak ties to the labor market. The article continues by considering the specific steps suburban zoning officials take to make it impossible for members of the underclass to find low-cost rental housing in the suburbs. The article then explores the possibility of challenging these zoning practices by invoking federal constitutional law standards, concluding that challenges of this sort hold little promise. In conclusion, the article addresses what might be accomplished not only by keeping the urban poor out of the suburbs but also by keeping them in the center-city. The article does not critique lines of legal reasoning or propose law reform but rather captures an oppressive aspect of American life and underscores the role law plays in it.

As usual, David provides a deeply engaging account of the development of the law that is rich in social and historical context.  Another in his underclass series (“Family Law for the Underclass: Underscoring Law’s Ideological Function“) is also available on SSRN.

Continue ReadingKeeping the Underclass in Its Place

Quill Awards

I enjoyed the Marquette Law Review‘s annual banquet Friday night.  United States District Court Judge William Griesbach delivered a thought-provoking talk on “The Joy of Law.”  But the personal highlight for me may have been the opportunity, along with my fellow faculty advisor Dan Blinka, to announce the winners of this year’s Golden and Silver Quill Awards for top student comments in the Law Review.  The Golden Quill went to Charles Stone for his comment on classical Chinese attitudes regarding what we might now call plagiarism, which was published at 92 Marq. L. Rev. 199.  The Silver Quill went to Ben Crouse for his comment on worksite immigration raids, which will be published in the upcoming spring issue of the Law Review (Vol. 92, No. 3).  Both of the award-winning comments should be regarded as exemplars of outstanding student scholarship by future generations of Law Review comment-writers.  Congratulations to Ben and Charles!  Congratulations also to Melissa McCord and her colleagues for presenting such a fine program Friday night.

Continue ReadingQuill Awards

Esenberg on the Establishment Clause

Rick Esenberg has two interesting recent additions to the SSRN database of scholarly papers, both of which develop his theory of “a more modest Establishment Clause.”  Here is the abstract of the first paper, entitled “Of Speeches and Sermons: Worship in Limited Purpose Public Forums”:

Recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court have held that governments who create limited purpose public forums may not exclude even “quintessentially religious” speech that is otherwise within the purpose of the forum. Nevertheless, governments frequently attempt to exclude religious speech that might be characterized as “worship” from such forums and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in conflict with the Second and (arguably) Seventh Circuits, has upheld such exclusion.

This article addresses whether worship can be regarded as a separate category of speech that may be constitutionally excluded from limited purpose public forums. To assess the idea that worship is “different,” it briefly assesses mainstream Christian theology concerning worship and concludes that worship is likely to communicate ideas about life in the world that are within the boundaries of most broadly defined public forums. Exclusion of such speech would be inconsistent with the Court’s insistence upon neutrality between religion and irreligion and is unnecessary to avoid the risk or appearance of establishing religion.  

The paper is forthcoming in the Mississippi Law Journal. 

Continue ReadingEsenberg on the Establishment Clause