Freedom of religion should not be freedom to discriminate! AZ SB 1062

Well, dang. Arizona just keeps coming on, don't they?

Arizona Senate Bill 1062 amending their current statute on freedom of religion:

"Person" includes [a religious assembly or institution] any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity.

The removed language in brackets and italicized. The new language is bolded. It might seem innocuous until you start thinking about what this does. It grants the religious status of churches to EVERYBODY in the state -- so businesses, estates, trusts, and any individual who wants to can wrap their discriminatory acts in the mantle of freedom of religion and breeze along. Not covering birth control in their health insurance, or not hiring somebody from a different race or religion just because it offends their own sense of religious propriety. But of course, the rubber really hits the road when it comes to sexual orientation, doesn't it? Now, the good folks of Arizona won't have to be bothered by those uncomfortable gay, lesbian, queer, trans folks, if they just want to claim it is against their personal religion.

If you want to sign a Change.org petition against the bill, do so here.

It might hearten you to know that many Arizona businesses oppose this bill, remembering the financial sting from a previous boycott over their dismissal of Martin Luther King Day as a paid state holiday and then S.B. 1070, dealing with immigration. They are just seeing an economic recovery in the state, and are looking forward to the Superbowl coming in 2015. And already there are calls to move the Superbowl elsewhere because of this bill.

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick Signs Executive Order Barring Discrimination Based on Sexual Identity and Expression

The Boston Globe reported a few days ago that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed two executive orders which prohibit discrimination based on sexual identity or sexual expression in state employment. Link here for(Executive Order 526, barring third party vendors from such actions and Executive Order 527, which deals with state government itself. The Globe article briefly alludes to a piece of state legislation related to this which is currently in play. If you go to NECN (New England News Channel), you can see a brief report on the issue and see and hear Deval speaking on the matter. The short article that accompanies the video refers more explicitly to Governor Patrick's hope that his executive orders will assist in getting the bill passed, quoting him:

"It was brought to my attention by some of the advocates that there was a gap, and the gap was in transgender people, and it was an easy add, and I am happy to do it," he said. "There is a bill that has been moving through the legislature for a couple of years and I support that bill and I hope we'll get that bill out of the legislature and onto my desk this session."

And the advocacy organization Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition has an excellent website that covers it here. From the "Legislation" portion of the website, it appears that the bill(s) the Governor refers to are H1728 and S1687. You can see more about these bills at the excellent website, including full text of H1728, (in its 2009-2010 version), a summary of the House bill, "the truth about" the House and Senate bills, talking points, a lot of personal stories, information on other states which already have laws on gender-identity hate crimes, and more.

Printing Reinstated in Puerto Rico

I just received an email from Maria Otero, Director of the University of Puerto Rico Law Library. She shared with me the good news that Thomson Reuters has decided to reinstate support of standalone printing at law schools in Puerto Rico.

"Dear all:

After a very good and thoughtful telephone conversation with Mr. Mike Suchsland, President of West Education Group , and Mr. Chris Parton, Vice President, the Westlaw printer program has been reinstated for all Puerto Rico law schools. Both officials have promised that any future reductions in the program will be equally applicable to all law schools who currently participate in it.

Dean Aponte-Toro and myself are very satisfied with this result and wish to thank all of you who helped that our voices from this "distant ocean community" (Chief Justice Taft in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 1922 ) were heard.
We also wish to thank Mr. Suchsland and Mr. Parton for their understanding and swift action.

If those of you who sent messages concerning this subject could relay this one to those you contacted, I would certainly appreciate it. The same request to you bloggers, who also helped a great deal.

Thank you all very much,

José Julián Álvarez González
Professor of Law
University of Puerto Rico School of Law"

I wonder if Thomson will reconsider the decision not to support standalone printers at the District of Columbia College of Law and at Southern New England.

Thomson Reuters Discriminates Against Puerto Rican Law Schools?

A colleague alerted me to the email below, sent to Thomson Reuters on August 21 by a professor at University of Puerto Rico School:

Dear Thomson Reuters executives:

The enclosed e-mail by ... is self-explanatory. In it, he objects to your discriminatory policy to discontinue providing the printers’ service (complimentary printers and supplies), which were installed at the local Puerto Rico law school libraries. That policy, it seems, is only directed against Puerto Rican law schools. I am also informed that all efforts by our head librarian at the University of Puerto Rico Law School to have Thomson Reuters end that discriminatory policy have been rebuffed.

Since Thomson Reuters seems only to understand cost benefit analysis (in its own idiosyncratic way), let me complicate that analysis a bit. If Thomson Reuters does not immediately change its discriminatory policy to make it non discriminatory (for instance, a cap on sheets of papers and ink, applicable to all law schools everywhere on a per student basis), I will cease using Thomson Reuters texts in my courses, and will urge all colleagues at the four Puerto Rican law schools to do likewise. I will also bring the matter up with as many colleagues as I can in United States law schools.

I teach Constitutional Law, Federal Jurisdiction and Comparative Law. In Constitutional Law I have used Foundation Press casebooks for 28 years, usually Gunther´s (now Sullivan & Gunther), but some years I also used Cohen's. During those 28 years I also used some version of Nowak & Rotunda's hornbook as an additional text. My sections usually have between 60-80 students. In Federal Jurisdiction I have always used Wright's casebook, and many times I have also assigned Wright's hornbook as an additional text to the 30-40 students in that course. In Comparative Law, which I have taught for some seven years, I have used Schlesinger's casebook and Glendon's nutshell. I usually have some 10-15 students in that course. Also, I have taught that course four times in January at the University of Ottawa Law School, and will be teaching it again this January, Those courses usually have 15-20 students. I had already informed Ottawa that I would be using the new edition of Schlesinger (Mattei et al.) next January, but there is ample time to change that. And, as you well know, and Aspen and Lexis-Nexis representatives keep reminding me, there are many satisfactory susbtitutes for all of these texts.

I am sending a copy of this e-mail to Professors Kathleen Sullivan, John Oakley and Ugo Mattei, whose casebooks I would be forced to discontinue using, if you discriminatory policy remains in effect, and to Professors Owen Fiss and Carol Rose, of the editorial board of your University Casebook Series (Foundation Press). I will also forward it to as many stateside professors of Puerto Rican descent as I can identify. Professors Angel Oquendo (Connecticut), Pedro Malavet (Florida), Ediberto Román (Florida International) and Alberto Bernabe (John Marshall) immediately come to mind. All professors at Puerto Rico law schools will also receive a copy of this e-mail.

Since moral arguments have not been enough to make Thomson Reuters reconsider its discriminatory policy, I hope that math does the trick.

Sincerely,
[]
Professor of Law
University of Puerto Rico School of Law

The reason for the decision was apparently that per capita use of free dedicated printers and supplies is much higher at Puerto Rican law schools than at other law schools located within the United States. This probably means that Puerto Rican law students have fewer resources at their disposal, i.e., home and/or work printers that they can use instead of the dedicated LexisNexis and Westlaw printers, from which it can be inferred that the decision will hit them particularly hard. This decision is hard to reconcile with the recent announcement of Thomson's second-quarter earnings. "Despite difficult global economic conditions, Thomson Reuters achieved revenue growth and margin expansion as a result of its balanced portfolio of businesses, continuing progress on the Reuters integration and effective cost management." Given this optimistic report to shareholders, what compelling need can Thomson Reuters cite to justify cutting off a valuable service to one relatively small group of law students? If this can happen to the students in Puerto Rico, it could happen anywhere. All of our students rely on the free standalone printers for budget relief and also for convenience. I urge law librarians to email the Thomson Reuters executives responsible for this wrongheaded decision: thomas.glocer@thomsonreuters.com, gustav.carlson@thomsonreuters.com, peter.warwick@thomsonreuters.com, devin.wenig@thomsonreuters.com.