Professor Heidi Gorovitz Robertson served as a Peer Reviewer for the Fulbright Specialist Program’s 2020 Cycle 4 application process.  Robertson has served as a peer reviewer for the Fulbright Specialist Program since 2017 and has received two Fulbright Specialist grants herself.  

Robertson is the Steven W. Percy Distinguished Professor of Law at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, and Professor of Environmental Studies at the Levin College of Urban Affairs.

Professor Milena Sterio served as host and moderator of a book launch on July 23.  The featured book was Professor Jennifer Trahan’s (NYU) “Existing Legal Limits to the Security Council Veto Power in the Face of Atrocity Crimes” (Cambridge University Press 2020).  Panelists included Professor Trahan, Richard Goldstone (former Judge, South African Constitutional Court and former Prosecutor, International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda), Dean Michael Scharf (Case Western Reserve University School of Law), and Professor Beth Van Schaack (Stanford Law School).  

Professor Milena Sterio presented her paper, “Women at the International Criminal Court,” at a session on July 22 of the Feminist Legal Scholarship series.  The Feminist Legal Scholarship series is a bi-monthly workshop/presentation series; papers were selected from a competitive call-for-papers.  

Professor Jonathan Witmer-Rich published an essay titled “Consentability, Autonomy, and Self-Actualization,” in the Loyola Law Review.  This issue is devoted to a collection of invited essays responding to Professor Nancy S. Kim’s book, “Consentability: Consent and Its Limits,” recently published by Cambridge University Press.  Other invited authors include Brian H. Bix (University of Minnesota), Philip J. Cook (Stanford University), and Kimberly D. Krawiec (Duke University), among others.

Professor Witmer-Rich’s essay evaluates several competing principles underlying consent, such as self-interest, self-sovereignty, and self-actualization.  He argues that the nature of consent depends heavily on which of these underlying values consent is believed to serve.  He concludes that “self-actualization–the ongoing human project of creating and embodying coherent and meaningful values and choices–is the most fundamental good of autonomy and is the good that society should seek to further in the law of consent.”

Professor Matthew W. Green Jr. published an op-ed today in Attorney-At-Law Magazine on the Supreme Court’s recent Bostock v. Clayton County decision.  Bostock held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s proscription against sex discrimination encompasses claims of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination as well.

Professor Green lauded the Court’s opinion for several reasons. Prior to Bostock, LGBTQ individuals grappling with workplace discrimination faced a patchwork of protections that depended on geographic location.  Most states, like Ohio, do not protect employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.  Bostock provides employees such protection as long as they work for an employer that falls within the scope of Title VII.  Professor Green also notes the significance of Bostock in light of Obergefell v. Hodges, which barred states from prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.  Bostock makes Obergefell even more meaningful because employees no longer have to fear being fired for exercising their constitutional right to marry.

While Bostock is momentous, Professor Green explains that because the decision is limited to employment, LGBTQ individuals continue to lack important protections in other areas, such as public accommodations.  Bostock also leaves several other issues unresolved.  For these and other reasons, Professor Green argues that advocates should continue to push for legislation at the federal and state levels specifically addressing issues of importance to LGBTQ individuals.