University of Texas School of Law - Peregrinus Yearbook (Austin, TX)

Page 11 text:

New Perspectives on Women and Violence Over 200 people attended “New Perspectives on Women and Violence,’’ the first annual symposium sponsored by Texas Journal of Women and the Imw , in conjunction with 1'hc University of Texas School of Law, on March 6-7, 1992 at the Charles I. Francis Auditorium. Participants included students, attorneys, professors, police officers, and employees and volunteers of women’s shelters, as well as judges, who enthusiastically discussed the problems and solutions to a topic that effects not only women, but society as a whole. Seventeen speakers from all over the country presented papers on such topics as sexual vi- olence, pornography, domestic violence and child abuse. The keynote address was presented by Dr. Ignore Walker, a psychologist recognized world-wide for her research and expert testimony on the subject of the Battered Women’s Syndrome. Other highlights of the symposium included a multi-media presentation by Assistant Professor Mia Carter of the L'T English Department who, while showing the movie Thelma and Louise, discussed society’s response to women committing violence, as well as other aspects of the film. Also, Philosopher Dr. Rosemarie Tong of Davidson College debated Associate Professor of Law Morrison Torrey of DePaul University School of Law-on the first amendment right to pornography versus the potential harm to women by pornography. The Texas Journal of Women and the Law plans to publish the presentations in a symposium issue in the fall of 1992. Texa Journal of Women and the law Sympouum — 7

Page 10 text:

Law School Debates School Financing Public school financing has spurred many debates, but speakers at a UT Law School symposium agreed that Texas is moving in the right direction. Legislators do deserve a pat on the back. They have moved way down the line since the ’70s,” said Nancy Frank, associate director of the Fxlucation Fxonomic Policy Center. “To solve these problems will take lime.” Numerous topics were discussed during Saturday’s symposium, entitled “Texas Public School Financing: Lessons in Law and Politics”, including the Edgewood vs. Kirby case and judicial requirements of the Legislature to fund public education. “We’re not sure where we’re going or how we are going to get there,” said Texas Land Commissioner Garry Mauro in his keynote address. “We arc here to reach a consensus that satisfies the court and satisfies the Legislature and a consensus which will give us quality education as Texans, Mauro said The school financing debate was sparked in 1989 when the Texas Supreme Court ruled that “glaring disparities” were present between Texas' wealthy and poor school districts. One year later, the court told the Legislature it must have a constitutional plan to fund state schools enacted by Sept. 1, 1991. The new school finance plan creates 180 county education districts, boundaries generally drawn along county lines, each of which will pay a property tax to be set by the state. Property-rich school districts must also give their excess tax revenue to poor districts so that per-student spending equals out. “There arc poor districts and rich districts, we must realize that,” said attorney David Richards. “It doesn’t make sense when one district spends $12,000 per student and another spends only $3,500 per student.” Richards represented the plaintiff in F.dgcwood vs. Kirby. Despite all the argument about the impact of education on children, these cases are tax arguments. This is basically a tax debate where people arc trying to be treated equal,” said Mark Yudof, dean of the School of Law. Speaking on the judicial funding requirements, Frank said Nobody is ever quite sure what they are doing. Maybe we haven’t done enough. Maybe we’ve done too much. Basically we are in a quandary.” Consolidation of school districts is perhaps the most difficult issue to face because nobody “wants to lose their school district,” Frank said. Currently, around 60 percent of all students are educated in schools financed below the state average. — Michael McCardel, Daily Texan Staff 6 — Public School Financing Debate

Page 12 text:

Are the Federalist Papers relevant in 1992? The Federalist Society’s Eleventh Annual National Symposium on Law and Public Policy: “The Legacy of the Federalist Papers” The Legacy of the Federalist Papers The Federalist has been called the most important work in political science that has ever been written. This symposium investigated the continued relevance to the American legal community of this classical statement of American political theory. The symposium center'd around four panel discussions and a debate. The presenters were pressed to answer both how The Federalist should be interpreted to apply to modern problems, and whether such interpretation is a relevant endeavor. Schedule of Events Friday. February 28. 1992 B. Idcn Payne ITtcatre: Introduction and Opening Remarks Chief Justice Thomas R. Phillips. Supreme Court of Texas Panel One Philosophical Foundations of The Federalist: The Nature of I .aw and the Nature of Man Moderator: Chief Justice Thomas R. Phillips. Supreme Court of Texas Panelists: Prof. Richard A. Epstein. University of Chicago Law School: Prof. Michael S. Moore. University of Iowa law School; Prof. Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard law School Saturday. February 29. 1992 Panel Two To Govern and Be (Governed: The Federalist's Vision of Representative Democracy Moderator: Honorable James L. Ryan. Judge. U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit Panelists: Dean Jesse H. Choper, University of California at Berkeley School of Law; Honorable Frank Easterbrook, Judge. U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit; Mr. David Epstein. U.S. Department of Defense; Prof. Jonathan R. Macey, Cornel Law School Panel Three Liberty and Constitutional Architecture Moderator: Honorable James L. Buck-ley. Judge. U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Panelists: Prof. John S. Baker Jr., Louisiana State University Law Center; Prof. Douglas Laycock. University of Texas School of Law; Prof. Geoffrey P. Miller, University of Chicago Law School Debate The Federalist and the Contemporary Debates on Term Limits Moderator: Honorable Will Garwood, Judge. U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit For: Honorable William Kristol. Chief of StafT. Office of the Vice President Against: Prof. Nelson Polsby, Institute for Governmental Studies. University of California at Berkeley Panel Four The Anti-Federalists after 200 years: Pundits or Prophets? Moderator: The Honorable Edwin Mcese III. 75th U.S. Attorney General and Distinguished Fellow. The Heritage Foundation Panelists: Prof. Akliil R. Amar, Yale Law School: Honorable Charles J. Cooper. Partner, Shaw, Pittman, Potts Trowbridge and former Assistant U.S. Attorney General; Prof. Lino A. Crag-lia. University of Texas School of Law Banquet Awatds Ceremony Law School Atrium 8 — Texas Federalist Society