Women in Special Operations: A Battle for Effectiveness Amidst the Pursuit of Equality

By Brittany L. Walter*

Click Here For PDF Version.

[The] Court has repeatedly recognized that neither federal nor state government acts compatibly with the equal protection principle when a law or official policy denies to women, simply because they are women, full citizenship stature—equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in and contribute to society based on their individual talents and capacities.

– Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg[1]

“Inherent differences” between men and women, we have come to appreciate, remain cause for celebration, but not for denigration of the members of either sex or for artificial constraints on an individual’s opportunity . . . such classifications may not be used, as they once were, to create or perpetuate the legal, social, and economic inferiority of women.

– Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg[2]

“She does not belong here.” Five simple words. The five words that served as my introduction to the gendered occupation of military life. Despite the fact that I entered the United States Air Force Academy in the 25^th class to accept women, it soon became abundantly clear that many of the traditional beliefs about a woman’s place in such an occupation persisted. The words were spoken, not by a seasoned officer set in his ways and the product of a different time, but by a fellow basic cadet. Further, they were not in response to an evaluation of my abilities as compared to my peers. Instead, they were a cursory observation based solely on a stereotype and perhaps preserved by a culture accepting of such. Continue reading “Women in Special Operations: A Battle for Effectiveness Amidst the Pursuit of Equality” →

A Colorable Showing of a Hybrid Rights Claim Under Strict Scrutiny: A Legal Analysis of What Would Happen when Transgender Identity Clashes with Free Exercise of Religion in California Public Schools

By Anika Hosseini*

Click Here For PDF Version.

Introduction

California is one of the leading states in enacting antidiscrimination laws that provide broad protection to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer and/or Questioning (“LGBTQ”) youths.[1] In 2013, California passed Assembly Bill No. 1266 (“AB 1266”),[2] the first law of its kind in this country.[3] AB 1266 adds a provision to the California Education Code that establishes a right for transgender public school students to access sex-segregated public school facilities and creates programs to recognize their selected gender identity.[4]

According to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, students who expressed a transgender identity while in grades K-12 “reported alarming rates of harassment (78%), physical assault (35%), and sexual violence (12%).”[5] Compared to their non-transgender peers, a disproportionate share of transgender students—nearly one-sixth—drop out of school at some point in their lives.[6] To alleviate such harm, California exercised its police power by enforcing legislative initiatives that prescribed equal treatment of LGBTQ students.[7] However, some argue AB 1266 infringes on the liberty interests of other students—namely their free exercise of religion.[8] AB 1266 brings to light one of the biggest tensions within our Constitution: liberty versus equality. What happens when a transgender youth, exercising his right to access facilities of the gender he identifies with, clashes with another student’s religious beliefs?[9] This paper details previous assertions of the Free Exercise clause and how courts have reconciled conflicts between the free exercise of religion and other constitutional interests. Continue reading “A Colorable Showing of a Hybrid Rights Claim Under Strict Scrutiny: A Legal Analysis of What Would Happen when Transgender Identity Clashes with Free Exercise of Religion in California Public Schools” →

Bias and the Business of Show

Employment Discrimination in the “Entertainment” Industry

Click Here for PDF Version

By Kathleen A. Tarr[1]

I can’t mount a film of this budget . . . and say that my lead actor is Mohammad so-and-so from such-and-such. I’m just not going to get it financed. So the question [of casting non-White actors] doesn’t even come up.

– Ridley Scott, Director[2]

You would think Actors’ Equity Association (“AEA”)—of all unions—would remember its Shakespeare: “A rose by any other name . . . .” Yet, despite decades of casting notices that, in calling for Caucasians, implicitly excluded people of color, it wasn’t until a production of Hamilton sought auditions from “non-White” talent that AEA took noticeable issue.[3] While AEA refuses to release its demographic data regarding employment under its contracts, statistics published by The Asian American Performers Action Coalition (“AAPAC”) show an overwhelming preference for White talent in stage productions, [4] underscored by casting calls in which 69% of available on-camera roles are reserved for Whites.[5] Continue reading “Bias and the Business of Show – Employment Discrimination in the “Entertainment” Industry” →