Ipse Dixit


University of Chicago Law Review Online Symposium, Episode 3: COVID-19 and Criminal Justice

Season 1, Ep. 672

In a special partnership with The University of Chicago Law Review Online and the Academy for JusticeIpse Dixit brings you a three part series on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice. This symposium of essays, hosted by The University of Chicago Law Review Online, was organized by the Academy for Justice. The contributors include leaders of criminal justice and health law centers, and scholars of criminal legal systems, whose works discuss the intersection of Criminal Justice and the COVID-19 pandemic. Contributors include Valena E. Beety (ASU), Brandon L. Garrett with Deniz Ariturk and William E. Crozier (Duke), Sharon Dolovich (UCLA), Maybell Romero (Northern Illinois), Pamela R. Metzger with Gregory J. Guggenmos (SMU Deason Center), Barry Friedman (NYU) with Robin Tholin, and Jennifer Oliva (Seton Hall).

In November, the participants joined each other online to discuss their pieces with Ipse Dixit host Maybell Romero, associate professor at Northern Illinois University College of Law. In this Episode 3 of the resulting three part series, Romero speaks with Deniz Ariturk and William Crozier about their piece coauthored with Brandon Garrett, Virtual Criminal Courts, and Pam Metzger and Greg Guggenmos about their piece, COVID-19 and the Ruralization of U.S. Criminal Court SystemsAriturk is a researcher at the Duke Law Center for Science and Justice and the Duke Moral Attitudes and Decision Making Lab, and Crozier the Research Director at Duke’s Center for Science and Justice. Metzger is the inaugural Director of the Deason Criminal Justice Reform Center at SMU Dedman School of Law, and Guggenmos is as consulting statistician at Deason.

Crozier is on Twitter at @WilliamCrozierIV, Metzger at Friedman at @ProfPamMetzger, and Romero at @MaybellRomero.

More Episodes


Aliza Shatzman on Holding Judges Accountable

Season 1, Ep. 758
In this episode, Aliza Shatzman, an attorney and advocate based in Washington, DC, discusses her article "Untouchable Judges? What I've learned about harassment in the judiciary, and what we can do to stop it," which will be published in the UCLA Journal of Gender & Law. Here is the abstract:Drawing from the author’s own experience of gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation during her clerkship and in the years following it by a former DC Superior Court judge, this Article analyzes the deficits in current federal and DC judicial reporting systems to demonstrate the urgent need for reform. I argue that harassment in the judiciary is pervasive, due to both enormous power disparities between judges and law clerks, and various institutional barriers that perpetuate misconduct and discourage reporting. I survey existing methods of judicial discipline in both the federal and DC Courts and argue that these provide insufficient redress for workplace misconduct. I then discuss the Judiciary Accountability Act (JAA) (HR 4827/S 2553), which would finally protect judiciary employees, including law clerks and federal public defenders, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, enabling employees to sue their harassers and seek damages for harm done to their careers, reputations, and future earning potential. Furthermore, I argue that the DC Courts should be included in the JAA, because they are Article I courts created and regulated by Congress, and DC Courts judges are arguably federal judges for Title VII and disciplinary purposes. I also offer a variety of other proposed reforms, which would both strengthen the JAA and provide additional protections to uniquely vulnerable judiciary employees. I conclude by reflecting on my attempts to report the misconduct I experienced, how the systems failed me when I tried to report, and my efforts to seek justice for myself and accountability for the misbehaving former judge.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.