Studs Turkel’s Impact on Telling the Stories of Workers

Studs As many of you are probably aware, last week saw the passing of an American icon, Studs Turkel. Mary Dudziak of the Legal History Blog relates that the author and radio host died this past Friday at the age of 96. From his website:

In 1952 Terkel began working for WFMT, first with the “Studs Terkel Almanac” and the “Studs Terkel Show,” primarily to play music. The interviewing came along by accident. This later became the award-winning, “The Studs Terkel Program.” His first book, Giants of Jazz, was published in 1956. Ten years later his first book of oral history interviews, Division Street : America, came out. It was followed by a succession of oral history books on the 1930s Depression, World War Two, race relations, working, the American dream, and aging. His latest book, Will the Circle Be Unbroken : Reflections on Death, Rebirth, and Hunger for a Faith, was published in 2001. Terkel continues to interview people, work on his books, and make public appearances. He is Distinguished Scholar-in-Residence at the Chicago Historical Society.

Mary observes this from the Chicago Tribune:

“At his bedside was a copy of his latest book, ‘P.S. Further Thoughts From a Lifetime of Listening,’ scheduled for a November release.”

From a labor perspective, Turkel made many important contributions in putting together oral histories of the life of workers, including Working: People Talk About What They Do All Day and How They Feel About What They Do and Hard Times: An Oral History of the Great Depression.

Thanks to Mary for pointing out that recordings from Terkel’s radio programs and oral history interviews are here.

Hat Tip: Patrick O’Donnell

Cross posted at Workplace Prof Blog.

Continue ReadingStuds Turkel’s Impact on Telling the Stories of Workers

November Blog Features

As the calendar turns from October to November, Gordon Hylton replaces Judi McMullen as our Featured Faculty Blogger of the Month.  Judi’s macabre posts on the dark side of family law were perfect for the month of Halloween.  In keeping with the pattern of seasonally suitable posts, I am hoping that Gordon will share his secrets for cooking a perfect turkey!

Also on the Thanksgiving theme, the new question of the month is, “Which of your law professors has had the greatest influence on you?”

Finally, I am pleased to announce a new feature this month, Student Blogger of the Month.  3L Andrew Golden will be serving in this role.

Continue ReadingNovember Blog Features

Seventh Circuit Week in Review

The Seventh Circuit had a busy week, with six new opinions in criminal cases. The government won all six.  I’ll provide just a brief description of each.  At the outset, though, it is interesting to note that five of the six involved gun charges.  Even in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recognition of an individual constitutional right to possess firearms in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008), it still appears to be business as usual in the world of gun prosecutions.

In United States v. Whitaker (No. 08-1259), the court (per Judge Ripple) affirmed the defendant’s conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm.  On appeal, Whitaker argued that his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the search of his car that turned up the incriminating firearm.  The search followed two 911 calls, in which tipsters alerted police to an altercation in a parking lot.  One of the tipsters further indicated that a man involved in the altercation was carrying a gun.  When police officers arrived on the scene, they found Whitaker and (after a search of Whitaker’s nearby parked car) the gun.  In seeking to have the gun suppressed, Whitaker relied on Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000), in which the Supreme Court held that stopping an individual solely on the basis of an anonymous tip usually falls beyond the bounds of reasonableness.  However, the Seventh Circuit distinguished J.L. based primarily on the fact that the tipsters in Whitaker alterted police to an ongoing altercation; “when the police respond to an emergency as a result of a 911 call, the exigencies of the situation do not require further pre-response verification of the caller’s identity before action is taken.”

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Week in Review