TempleTemple University James E. Beasley School of LawAlumni News •June 2016Peter J. Liacouras1931-2016Inside this issueFEMINIST JUDGMENTS PROJECT:Rewriting the law, writing the future4DEANS’ CUPTemple defeats VillanovaCLASS NOTESand other ALUMNI NEWSMicrosoft VP Fred Humphries is FEATURED ALUMNUS, page 15Former Attorney General ERIC HOLDERvisits law schoolBetween Borders refugee simulation andother SPRING 2016 EVENTS8121220PETER J. LIACOURAS:A transformative figure2$5 million dollar giftto fundBarrackScholars in LawJune 1, 2016Temple Law graduate and University Trustee LeonardBarrack ’68, and his wife Lynne, two of the university’s most generousbenefactors, have donated $5 million to the President’s Strategic Fund.The cash gift will enable the university to create the Barrack Scholars inLaw, a five-year scholarship initiative under development by TempleLaw Dean JoAnne A. Epps.Leonard Barrack graduated from Temple’s Fox Business Schoolbefore attending Temple Law, and Lynne Barrack earned herundergraduate degree from Temple’s School of Education. Two of theirchildren earned degrees at Temple, one from the law school. “Len andLynne are two of Temple’s most devoted alumni, and their lifelongsupport, especially for Temple Law students and faculty, will be felt forgenerations,” says President Neil D. Theobald.Barrack, who chairs Temple Law School’s Board of Visitors, is senior and founding partner of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, whichlitigates securities and antitrust class actions and complex commercial litigation.“As a native Philadelphian, I know that Temple is Philadelphia’spublic university and that Temple Law School produces some of theworld’s sharpest legal minds,” Len Barrack says. “Lynne and I havebenefited from the excellent education Temple provides, and we havenever been more excited about the university’s future.”Gift is most recent in a lifetime commitment to Temple LawThe Barracks’ philanthropic efforts at Temple have included numerousmajor gifts to Temple Law, including the establishment of the BarrackPublic Interest Fellowship Program for students and the Kohn andWeiner chairs, which are pivotal to attracting world-class legal scholarsto the law school.The Barracks’ generosity also made possible a significant law schoolexpansion when College Hall was renovated and renamed Morris andSylvia Barrack Hall, which honors Leonard Barrack’s parents andfeatures lecture halls, offices, seminar rooms and student lounges.Barrack served as campaign chair for Access to Excellence: The125th Anniversary Campaign for Temple. The campaign, which closed at the end of 2009, raised more than $380 million for communityengagement programs, faculty support, research, state-of-the-artfacilities and student scholarships.A member of the Board of Trustees since 2001, Barrack has beenrecognized with the Temple Alumni Distinguished Service Award. Lynneis just as active in the couple’s Temple endeavors and philanthropy. “We are grateful for this gift and look forward to welcoming the firstgroup of Barrack Scholars to Temple Law in the entering class in fall2016,” says Dean JoAnne A. Epps. “The generosity of the Barracks neverceases to amaze me.” Leonard Barrack ’68Morris and Sylvia Barrack Hall, honoring Leonard Barrack'sparents, was renovated in 2002. may 12, 2016Peter J. Liacouras, the individual many Philadelphians credit with turning a local treasure into a world-class institution, died at the age of 85 from a stroke. He will be remembered for his five-decade career in which he shaped Temple University into the dynamic institution it is today. Liacouras came to Temple Law as an assistant professor of law in 1963 and by 1972 was its dean, going on to serve as president of the university for 18 years and, later, as chancellor.Born in Philadelphia and raised in the Delaware County suburb of Yeadon, Liacouras was the fourth and youngest child of James Peter Liacouras and Stella Lagakos Liacouras. His parents, who immigrated to the United States from Greece in the first decade of the last century, devoted themselves to the advancement of their children. Educated in the public schools of Yeadon and Philadelphia, Liacouras went on to study at Drexel University and College of William and Mary, and earned a law degree at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. An avid student, he went on to do advanced study at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Harvard Law School, and Yale Law School, where he was a Sterling Fellow. Before joining the Temple Law faculty, Liacouras served as a specialist for the Department of State in India, a public defender, and Special Assistant District Attorney in Philadelphia.Liacouras: A ‘transformative’ figure for the law school2 • Temple eSQ. June 2016Temple University president and former law deanpioneered experiential learning, diversity, globalization. Peter J. Liacouras 1931-2016Before he was named president of the university in1982—a position he would hold for 18 years—Liacourasled Temple Law School through important years of growthinto a center for experiential learning and internationallaw. “Peter Liacouras was a transformative dean,” saysProfessor Robert J. Reinstein, who served as law schooldean from 1989 to 2008.During Liacouras’ stewardship of the law school—from 1972 to 1982—he initiated the now-extensive rosterof clinical programs that place Temple Law among the top in the nation in “hands-on” learning. He institutedTemple-LEAP, a citywide mock trial program thatintroduced inner-city high school students to the law. He converted the Legal Aid Office into a clinical programin which Temple students could represent the low-incomeresidents of North Philadelphia. He was an advocate forthe trial advocacy program, now ranked among thehighest in the country. The foundation for Temple Law’s broad internationalprogram was laid during Liacouras’ deanship, when helaunched programs in London, Tel Aviv, Rome, Paris andintroduced the still flourishing LL.M. degree forinternational students.Peter J. Liacouras at Temple University: A Timeline in Brief1963-1965assistantprofessor of law 1965-1967associateprofessor of law 1972-1982Dean, Temple university School of law 1982-2000president,Templeuniversity 2000-2016Chancellor,Templeuniversity •••••NELSON DIASPeter Liacouras, shown with DengXiaoping in 1998, was head of aTemple University delegation thatvisited Beijing to lay the groundworkfor the law school's rule of lawprogram, which was instituted thefollowing year. The Master of Lawsdegree for Chinese judges andattorneys was the first foreign degree-granting law education programapproved by the American BarAssociation and the Chinese Ministry of Education.He oversaw a sea change in the demographics of the student body, as heinstituted one of the first affirmative-action programs in the country—the Sp.A.C.E. Program. Liacouras’ impact was felt in the legal communityoutside the law school as well.Temple eSQ. June 2016 • 3Liacouras chaired a committee in the early 1970s that studied thePennsylvania bar exam to determine whether the low passage rate amongAfrican-American applicants was due to the exam’s implicit bias. When thecommittee released a report finding it was indeed discriminatory, thePennsylvania Board of Law Examiners quickly acted to reform the process. Reinstein credits the commission with being largely responsible for integrating the Pennsylvania bar membership. “It led to major changes in the bar admission process, and the number of new blacklawyers rose exponentially.” At the same time, Liacouras worked to increase representation ofwomen in the classroom. In 1974, Deborah R. Willig ’75, then president ofthe Student Bar Association, praised the groundbreaking progress TempleLaw was making. “Under the leadership and commitment of Dean Peter J.Liacouras, the enrollment of women at the law school . . . exceeds 30percent, and the incoming freshman class should be comprised of almost 45 percent women,” reported Willig. “We have six full-time womenprofessors, and the second highest position in the administration—deputy dean—has been held by a woman for the past two years.” Professor Reinstein agrees. “We were one of the first law schools tohave significant numbers of full-time minority and female faculty—including those who went on to luminous careers, such as Dolores Sloviter, the first woman on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Drew Days,an Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and Solicitor General of theUnited States, H. Patrick Swygert, the President of SUNY Albany andHoward University, and Carl Singley [another Temple Law dean.]”Later, as university president, Liacouras would continue hiscrusade to increase Temple’s diversity, not only for students of color,but also for minorities in institutional leadership positions. The firstdoctoral program in African American Studies also started during his tenure.When Liacouras announced his retirement in late 1999, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Acel Moore wrote, “I can’t think of any otherwhite college president who has done more than Liacouras topromote diversity and provide access to those who traditionally havebeen left out or excluded.”Liacouras remained on the law school faculty while serving aspresident and later as chancellor of the university until, in 2000, hewas named University Professor of Law. In 2006, he assumedEmeritus status. A memorial service was held on May 20, 2016 in theTemple Performing Arts Center.Feminist Judgments Project: Rewriting the Law, Writing the FutureTemple Law Professor Kathryn Stanchi (right)is a co-editor of a new feminist volume;Professor Rachel Rebouché (left) contributed a commentary.“What if women had always served on the Supreme Court?” readtheTime Magazineheadline for an article about the U.S. FeministJudgments Project. Mother Jones’ headline was even moreprovocative: “See How Your Life Would Change If We Cloned RuthBader Ginsburg.”The scholarly project creating so much buzz in the mainstreampress, the U.S. Feminist Judgments Project, was conceived in2010 when Temple Law Professor Kathryn M. Stanchi learned of agroup of feminist legal scholars in the United Kingdom who hadrevisited significant cases in English law and published a book ofthose rewritten decisions to wide acclaim. Stanchi reached out to other feminist scholars in the U.S. afterattending a presentation by the U.K. book’s editors. A subsequentcall for participants in the U.S. project resulted in more than 100academics and practitioners eager to contribute. In addition tothe U.S. project, Stanchi says, the U.K. project has inspiredprojects in Ireland, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, as wellas a project devoted to the field of international law.Modeled on the U.K. project, the U.S. group set out to examinekey gender-related opinions of the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates (SCOTUS), and publish a volume of those opinions,recrafted through the lens of feminist reasoning and analysis.Slated for publication in 2016 by Cambridge University Press,Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United StatesSupreme Court,brings together three editors (Stanchi is joined byBridget J. Crawford from Pace Law School and Linda L. Bergerfrom the University of Nevada, Las Vegas Law School) and 52authors, one of whom is a second Temple Law professor, RachelRebouché. Those authors were asked to rewrite and comment on26 carefully selected opinions, spanning almost a century and ahalf from 1873, when Bradwell v. Illinoisdenied a woman the rightto practice law, to 2015, when Obergefell v. Hodgesaffirmed theright to same sex marriage.“Far from an academic exercise,” Stanchi says, “thistrailblazing exercise in scholarly activism demonstrates thepractical—and powerful—impact that feminist theory can havenot only in contextualizing past decisions, but informing decision-making going forward.” The U.S. Feminist Judgments Projectchallenges the premises that Supreme Court opinions are writtenfrom a neutral vantage point and are driven wholly by legal rulesand objective application of precedent. “Hasn’t every law professor thought she would have done abetter job with a decision than the Supreme Court did—in atleast a dozen or two of the cases she cares most about?“ writesco-editor Berger. “Suppose that in Bradwell v. Illinois(1873), rather thanupholding the Illinois decision to deny a woman the right topractice law on the ground that nothing in the Constitutionprohibited the state from making its decision, the Court hadsupported the equal protection rights of all citizens to earn aliving,” says Berger. “Or what if, in Rostker v. Goldberg(1981),instead of finding the men-only draft registration requirement to be constitutional, the Court had recognized that by requiringmen and prohibiting women from registering for the draft,Congress was perpetuating stereotypes that harmed both menand women?”Feminist Judgment Project challenges stare decisis To what extent do hidden and often-unrecognized biases drivethe results and the reasoning in the rulings of our highest court?The U.S. Feminist Judgment Project editors posit that a feministlens reveals that stare decisis—“to stand by that which isdecided,” or the principal that precedent is to be followed by thecourts—can mask what is really a masculine viewpoint. Hiddenbiases—not stare decisis—may be what drives the reasoning andresults in the cases they examine. After narrowing their inquiry to 26 key SCOTUS decisionsrelated to gender equality, the editors agreed on a set of rulesgoverning their project: the authors were instructed to rewritethose decisions, citing only material that was available at thetime of the original opinion. They were allowed, however, to applyfeminist thought and theory that arose subsequently. Like theJustices who penned the original decisions, the authors couldespouse cultural or social views and bring their perspectives totheir interpretation and application of the law. Many of the authors report that, to their surprise, the feministanalyses, social theories, and arguments that they wished to relyon were in circulation at the time of the original decision, andsometimes even well represented in the amicus briefs before theCourt. The oldest decision in the book is Bradwell v. Illinois,the1873 opinion in which the Supreme Court denies a woman‘IF WE CLONEDRUTH BADERGINSBURG’Feminist Judgments Project rethinks key SCOTUS decisionsTemple eSQ. June 2016 • 5How did SCOTUS opinionssurvive feminist rewrites? When the project’s authors brought their own feminist consciousness or philosophy to some of the mostimportant—and supposedly ‘neutral’—decisions impacting gender-relatedissues, the recrafted decisions took on a very different character. Viewed differently, some of the outcomesin the original rulings had little chance ofsurviving the rewrites:In Geduldig v. Aiello(1974), an all-malecourt upheld a California statute thatdenied disability benefits to women withpregnancy-related disabilities. Rewritingthe decision for Feminist Judgments,university of Buffalo professor lucindaFinley says she disagrees with Justicepotter Stewart’s majority opinionasserting that the California law did notconstitute sex discrimination because itdistinguished not between women andmen but between “pregnant women andnonpregnant persons.”Griswold v. Connecticut(1965) cameabout after the executive director of theplanned parenthood league ofConnecticut was convicted under a statelaw that made it illegal to offer marriedpeople counseling or medical treatmentrelated to birth control. The SupremeCourt ruled that the law violated sexualprivacy rights for married couples. In herfeminist rewrite of the decision, lauraRosenbury, Dean of the university ofFlorida’s levin College of law, says she“extend[ed] the scope of this libertyinterest to all personal relationshipsbetween adults—whether married orunmarried and without regard to theadults’ sexual orientation.” She alsopoints out that the Connecticut lawviolates equal protection for women byallowing the sale of condoms but notother types of birth control.admission to the bar. Feminist Judgment Project author and Professor of Law atGeorge Washington University Phyllis Goldfarb reports that advocates of women’srights in the late 1800s introduced into the mainstream public discourse feministegalitarian ideals about women’s participation in professional and public life, andthey made strong arguments within the existing legal framework to advance theseideals. Those arguments were just ignored in the majority opinion. Each rewritten opinion is accompanied by a 2,000-word commentary. Temple LawProfessor Rachel Rebouché was chosen to explicate the rewritten opinion for Roe v.Wade,the ever-controversial 1973 decision establishing privacy as the basis for awoman’s right to an abortion. In rewriting the majority opinion for Roe v. Wade,Rutgers Law Professor Kim Mutcherson rejects Justice Blackmun’s controversial“trimester approach,” acknowledges that abortion raises privacy concerns andemphasizes that government efforts to control the reproductive decisions of womenand not men violate equal protection. In her commentary, Rebouché explains how the rewritten opinion goes fartherthan the original Roe opinion in protecting women from gender-based discrimination: Justice Mutcherson’s [rewritten] concurrence may not have stemmed the tide ofanti-abortion activism and legislation or the backlash against women’schanging societal roles. But it might have provided future courts strongerlanguage for grounding abortion protections in the rights of women. . . . JusticeMutcherson’s opinion could have influenced the Court’s developing equalityjurisprudence and provided a basis for interpreting the right to end pregnancyas a right to opt out of prescribed gender roles that can support discriminationbased on sex and sexuality.. . . Mutcherson’s concurrence could have informed the extension of equalprotection (as well as due process) rights for gay, bisexual, transsexual,transgender, and queer persons. Cases like Lawrence v. Texasand United Statesv. Windsor,which relied on rational basis review and left unclear the scope of anequal protection right to sexuality, did not have the benefit of Mutcherson’sconcurrence. The same is true of Obergefell v. Hodges,although in that opinionequality arguments appear to more clearly buttress the constitutional right tomarriage for couples of the same sex.Constitutional rights to equality are, of course, not enough. Announcingconstitutional protection does not necessarily mean its beneficiaries will gainaccess to the social and economic benefits that rights promise. Even with thelimitations of rights in mind, a reimagined Roeand these twenty-first centurycases highlight the Court’s role in affirming evolving concepts of gender or sexand in dismantling the state control of procreative or relational decision-making. Justice Kennedy wrote in Obergefell,“The Court has recognized thatnew insights and societal understandings can reveal unjustified inequalitywithin our most fundamental institutions that once passed unnoticed andunchallenged.” The reasoning that undermines laws that fix women’s place asmothers can also help untether sexuality from procreation or fromheterosexuality. Were Mutcherson’s [rewritten] concurrence the law, her opinioncould have set the United States on the path of realizing that future.Feminist jurisprudence is not ‘pie in the sky’“It’s not pie in the sky or outrageous to protect women’s rights with the law of theland,” says Stanchi. “You can have feminist jurisprudence with the precedent that wehave now,” she says. “We just have to view it differently.”In Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court,the book’s editors conclude: “Our initial hypothesis had been correct: it is not that feminist arguments did not exist at the time of particular decisions, but ratherthat feminist consciousness has often been ignored or erased in US Supreme Court jurisprudence.”“Systemic inequalities are not intrinsic to law but rather may be rooted in thesubjective—and often unconscious—beliefs and assumptions of the decisionmakers. These inequalities may derive from processes and influences that tend to reinforce traditional or familiar approaches, decisions, or values. In other words, if we can broaden the perspectives of the decision makers, change in the law is possible.” 6 • Temple eSQ. June 2016Kathryn M. Stanchiis a professor oflaw and affiliatedprofessor ofWomen’s Studies atTemple universityBeasley School oflaw. She teacheswriting courses,including courses infeminism andadvocacy, her mainscholarly areas ofconcentration.Stanchi’s articles have appeared in theWashington Law Review,the HarvardCivil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Reviewand the Berkeley Women’s Law Journal,among others. She attended Bryn mawrCollege and the university ofpennsylvania, and earned her J.D.,magna cum laude, from Bostonuniversity School of law.Rachel Rebouchéis an associateprofessor at Temple universityBeasley School oflaw, where sheteaches family law,health law, andcomparative familylaw. her currentresearch focuses on reproductivehealth, collaborativedivorce, genetictesting, and governance feminism.Rebouché earned a J.D. from harvardlaw School, ll.m. from Queen’suniversity, Belfast, and B.a. from Trinityuniversity. She clerked for Justice KateO’Regan on the Constitutional Court ofSouth africa, and was an associatedirector of adolescent health programsat the national partnership for Women& Families and a Women’s law andpublic policy Fellow at the nationalWomen’s law Center.Temple eSQ. June 2016 • 7Overall, out of 196aBa-accreditedlaw schoolsTrial advocacylegal Researchand WritingInternationalpart-timeprogramsUS NEWSRANKINGS50RANKmaRCh 2016Temple Law Schoolcontinued its rankings momentum bymoving into the US NewsTop 50,joining the University of PennsylvaniaLaw School as the only tw o regionallaw schools included in the report’stop tier.Temple’s location at #50 marks the school’s highest ranking to date.“I’m certainly pleased with theseresults, which I believe reflect thefaculty’s continued focus on our coremission: ensuring that our studentshave the skills, knowledge, andprofessionalism necessary to succeedin whatever practice setting theychoose,” says Dean JoAnne A. Epps.Specialty programs climb as wellThe excellence of several of TempleLaw’s specialty programs wasrecognized in US News as well. Trial Advocacy retained the #2 position, while Legal Research and Writing climbedone spot to #10. The International Law program rose to #12, edging out programsat Stanford, Cornell, Northwestern, and the University of Pennsylvania.Temple’s part-time program, which has been ranked every year since part-time programs were added to the report in 2010, also continued its strongperformance, climbing one spot to #6.High rankings echoed in other publicationsThe US News ranking is consistent with other recent rankings measuring not only the excellence of Temple Law’s legal training, but also the success of theschool’s graduates. • A January 2015 report by SuperLawyersranked Temple Law sixth nationally formost practice-ready graduates. • National Law Journalnamed Temple Law a Best Value law school, ranking it#14 for public interest/public service, and #39 on their list of the top 50 Go-ToLaw Schools.•National Jurist Magazinenamed Temple among the best schools for practicaltraining, the only school in the region or state to appear on the list. Theranking takes into account both the percentage of students enrolled in clinics,externships, or simulation courses and student participation in interscholasticskills competitions.• International Juristranked Temple Law’s LL.M. programs among the nation’sbest for cultural fit for students from China, Asia, and Europe, and for bestoverall law school experience. Temple’s international offerings include LL.M.programs in Asian Law and Transnational Law, as well as the LL.M. for ForeignTrained Lawyers, all of which are based at the Philadelphia campus. TEMPLE LAW MOVES INTO US NEWSTOP TIER106122Feminist JudgmentsProject scholarsNext >