by BB

For those unfamiliar with him, Manti Te’o was the star linebacker of the storied Notre Dame football program. Te’o was the runner-up for the Heisman and received much press coverage throughout this past season.

One incident in particular caught the eyes of the nation. In October, Te’o’s grandmother and girlfriend both passed away on the same day. Despite those heavy losses, Te’o played in Notre Dame’s game against Michigan State, leading his team to victory. He quickly became the focus of adulation.

But some months later, Deadspin broke the story that Te’o’s girlfriend never existed. http://deadspin.com/5976517/manti-teos-dead-girlfriend-the-most-heartbreaking-and-inspirational-story-of-the-college-football-season-is-a-hoax.

As the story has played out, several pieces of the puzzle have fallen into place. Te’o was most likely not involved in the hoax. He met the girl, Lennay Kekua, online, and the two had never actually met in person. As it turns out, Kekua did not exist and was, in fact, a man impersonating her—his motives are still unclear. Yet Te’o was entirely duped until December, when he received a call from her from beyond the grave. He did not immediately inform anyone and, in fact, perpetuated the story of her death after receiving that call.

People have mocked Te’o for his naivety and questioned his motives for dating a woman he had never met in person. His story raises some interesting issues.

Is society beginning to accept the idea of “intimate” relationships that occur solely—or at least largely—online? Over the past decade, it has become increasingly acceptable to meet potential significant others online, but that is a far cry from carrying out an entire relationship online. One questions the draw of such an arrangement. Desperation was surely not the case for Te’o. If a Heisman Trophy candidate cannot meet women, what chance do the rest of us stand? The arrangement itself, once commenced, is not all that different from a long-distance relationship. But we still instinctively draw a line in the sand between couples who rarely see each other because of distance and couples who have never seen each other. Perhaps the rise of “electronic sexual intimacy”—such as phone sex and sexting—signals a piecemeal shift to entirely electronic relationships. In any event, the public’s response to Te’o indicates that society in general has not yet accepted any such practice.

by Johnathan M. Alba

Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta announcement that women will be allowed to serve in combat, overturned an administrative regulation baring woman from combat roles. While I am unabashed supporter of the move, I wonder if this is part of the Obama Administrations “broad and ambitious liberal agenda” as the New York Times put it, or is it a reaction to a reality in culture and society? Is this law as activism or reaction?

One of the more credible arguments supporters of the ban have, is that the women are simply not physically able to do the job. In the Marine Corps Gazette (an official publication of the U.S. Marines Corps) Capt. Katie Petronio, wrote about her personal experience in a combat unit. Capt. Petronio was extremely fit, but the physical strain required resulted in muscle atrophy in her leg and an ovarian condition that left her infertile. {For the full article go to: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal}

However, until the lifting of the ban women serving in the military were victims of a policy that capped their potential. The military requires combat service in order to advance in the ranks. As such the vast majority of officers in the U.S. military are men. In November of 2012, four military service women filled a law suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, in San Francisco. The law suit alleges that the policy was barring women who had been in combat, from attending leadership schools and denying them assignment to positions that would allow them to climb the ranks.

Looking at rule change in this light, it would seem that this is a case of legal activism. However, the reality on the ground paints a story of legal reaction.

In 2003, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin E. Dempsey, was in Iraq. While ridding in a Humvee he slapped the turret gunner on the leg and asked “Who are you? To his surprise the gunner leaned down and responded “I’m Amanda”.

Women on the front lines are nothing new in American history; from Molly Pitcher during the Revolutionary War, to the WASP of World War II, to today’s women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. {For a brief but interesting time line see: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/24/133870632/timeline-women-on-the-front-lines} Women have been serving and dying in war for a long time now.  But especially in the last decade the image of the modern American soldier is increasingly more diverse. More then 280,000 women have been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, with more then 800 wounded and more then 150 killed.

You can see the effect this has had in our culture. Increasingly we not only see but expect to see women taking an active part in the military. From G.I Jane to ABC’s Last Resort, our cultural view has become full of women who stand equal with their male counterparts.

Reality is not only affecting our cultural views about the war zone but society back home. Those women are not just numbers but daughters, sisters, mothers, wives and neighbors. This is not social engineering through law, this is reality. We are no longer a nation of blue and gold star mothers but instead we have become a nation of blue and gold star families.

Politically the winds have shifted as well. Think of the last presidential election; the inclusion images of service men and women, and the thanking of “our men and women in uniform”.  Senator Carl Leven, a democrat and Chairmen of the Senate Armed Service Committee, and Senator Kelly Ayotte, a republican and member of the Senate Armed Service Committee, both came out with statements of support for lifting the ban.

With all these factors taken into account the decision to lift the ban is less legal activism and more a reaction to reality. But, does it matter whether it’s law as activism or reaction? Or should we just be glad that an injustice has been corrected?  As Secretary Panetta said, “When I’ve gone to Arlington to bury our dead, there is no distinction that’s made between the sacrifices of men and women in uniform…they serve, they’re wounded and they die right next to each other.”  Now they have the ability to achieve their full potential together.

by Lily Colahan

During our initial lectures in our Human Rights, The Holocaust and The Law seminar, we have discussed the concept of introducing moral criteria into the legal conception.  While oftentimes the U.S. legal system provides no remedy for purely spiritual harms, the international community has, as of late, begun to experiment with the idea of providing moral remedies through the processes of storytelling and truth-seeking.

The experimentation with providing moral remedies to past atrocities is best known in the form of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Initiated at the end of Apartheid, the TRC is generally thought to have been a successful attempt to reconcile present South African communities with their troubled past. As part of the TRC, witnesses who were identified as victims of gross human rights violations were invited to give statements about their experiences. The Commission was empowered to grant amnesty to those who committed abuses during the apartheid era, so long as the crimes were politically motivated, proportionate and the perpetrator fully disclosed his or her past crimes. The TRC was significant and innovative because the processes initiated by the Commission recognized that justice can be obtained through truth-seeking and storytelling.

Following the success of the TRC, troubled communities across the world have considered implementation of similar truth-seeking commissions. One such jurisdiction is Northern Ireland. The Troubles, which refers to the three decades of violence between elements of Northern Ireland’s nationalist community and its unionist community, resulted in the deaths of approximately 3,500 individuals. In such a hostile environment, in which terrorist groups such as the IRA and the UVF killed each other as well as innocent civilians, it should come as no surprise that even following the signing of the Belfast Agreement (which many consider the conclusion of the Troubles), the Northern Ireland community still suffers a massive divide as individuals struggle to obtain justice and to heal. For the past ten years, a large portion of the Northern Irish community has called for a truth-seeking commission in order to address the country’s troubled past, and allow victims a forum in which to air their grievances. According to a recent survey from a cross-section of the Northern Irish population, a truth-seeking commission, a story-telling process, and public apologies were all highly favored ways to help Northern Irish society deal with its past.

Opposition for such a commission, however, has been disseminated by Peter Robinson, Northern Ireland’s First Minister. Robinson believes that a truth-seeking commission would serve no purpose, since violators would not come forward to tell the truth of past crimes. Robinson’s concerns raise a significant issue: if Northern Ireland implements a truth-seeking commission, should amnesty from legal action be offered in return for open and honest testimony? In the case of Northern Ireland, it appears that the community has called for moral justice through the form of a truth-seeking commission; however, the question remains, should such a moral remedy be provided if it will preclude the use of a future legal remedy?

by Stephen Dixon

Last week Above The Law reported that the office of BC Law’s LGBT student group had been vandalized with profanity and graffiti. This “cowardly act,” as described by BC Law dean Vincent Rougeau, is obviously just that. But it also highlights a different corner of LGBT rights than I had addressed previously, when I argued that innocuous television stereotypes of gay characters and themes were a signal of tolerance in mass culture and not necessarily an obstacle to overcome. Here, the vandalism took place not in the “lowest-common-denominator” arena of network television sitcoms, but at a prestigious Jesuit law school in Massachusetts–the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in 2004. At the risk of weighing too heavily an isolated event, the juxtaposition of acceptance in the masses alongside rejection in the world of higher education is not only counterintuitive but also reveals the complexities of the issue.

Certainly BC bears no institutional culpability for the graffiti, and they have used no uncertain terms in stating that such intolerance will not stand. But the event does put in sharp relief two issues: (1) that despite the mounting approval for same-sex marriage among the college-educated, there remain plenty of bad apples; and (2) that colleges and universities, despite their lofty status, are not insulated from intolerance and have an important role in the same-sex marriage discussion.

More than likely, little can be done about the bad apples beyond ignoring them. But higher education is uniquely poised to face the issue head-on. While endorsing and defending student organizations that promote reasonable debate on the issue is essential, law schools in particular have the opportunity to devote a certain amount of intellectual activity and scholarly resources to the debate. The Center for Gender and Sexuality Law at Columbia is an example of the kind of intellectual weight being given to the topic. Similarly, The Forum is proud to host Max Mutchnick, Debra Messing, Councilwoman Christine Quinn, and Frank Bruni at the  Conversation on Same-Sex Marriage at the Time Warner Theater on Feb. 4. While public opinion is widely out of the control of institutions of higher education, the BC event shows the need for law schools to advocate discussion first within their own walls.

By Evan B.

You do not have to be a football fan to be aware of one of the more bizarre, confusing, and, in reality, not very football-related, news stories in recent memory.  I am, of course, talking about former Notre Dame Football star, Manti Te’o, and his “girlfriend.”  Girlfriend was placed in quotes because by now everyone knows that she did not exist.  Yet, his girlfriend had a face.  And it was plastered all over the internet and news outlets in the aftermath of the story breaking.  How could a fake girl have a very real face?  Quite simply, the alleged perpetrator of the hoax, Ronaiah Tuisosopo, took pictures from the Facebook page of a girl who we now know is Diane O’Meara.  As O’Meara put it, he “has literally been stalking my Facebook and stealing my photos” (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8869133/diane-omeara-woman-manti-teo-fake-girlfriend-photo-speaks-out).  And therein lays a separate, but perhaps more relevant and culturally significant issue.  This blog has touched on it before (http://www.forumonlawcultureandsociety.org/blog/2012/11/07/data-mining-the-costs-of-living-our-lives-online/), but these recent events again bring privacy issues to the forefront.

In today’s society, people are increasingly tangled in the web that is “the social network.”  From sepia-toned pictures of their breakfast to up to the minute status’s detailing their whereabouts, more and more people are sharing information.  O’Meara’s involvement in the Te’o story is not the first time that concerns over Facebook’s privacy has become news.  Just last month, Mark Zuckerberg’s own sister complained when a supposedly “private” photo made its way to public channels (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/12/26/mark-zuckerbergs-sister-complains-facebook-privacy-issues/).

This begs the question, if even she can’t figure out Facebook’s privacy settings, how are we supposed to?  And to what exactly are we consenting to when we post such things?  Sure, Facebook has a page detailing its privacy settings, but many have noted the impossibility of deciphering exactly what it says.  Others, quite frankly, don’t even bother to read it.  Sure people could be more prudent about what they post, but as the network grows so will the amount that people place in it.  Yes what happened to O’Meara seems like an extreme scenario, but it provides plenty of questions to ponder and hopefully will make someone think twice before throwing it back next Thursday with a photo of that wild night in college.

by Stephen Dixon

In the run-up to the Forum’s Feb. 4 Conversation on Same-Sex Marriage, there is one question I have been particularly interested in: the relationship between gay television characters and public opinion for or against same-sex relationships. According to NPR’s Morning Edition, a recent content analysis by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation shows that the percentage of gay characters on television (4.4%) is now greater than the percentage of gay men and women in the general population (3.3%). Even without relying on that disproportionality, the study raises an issue that’s hard to deny outright: that gay characters and themes on television are in demand. The spate of seasonally renewed series in recent years–Glee, Modern Family, The New Normal, etc.–leaves little doubt that networks are gearing programming with the belief that gay characters are, if nothing else, an opportunity to boost ad revenues.

This of course leaves the door ajar for cheap exploitation of shallow gay stereotypes and abuse of an important social issue for cheap entertainment. Programming centered around gay characters whose sexual orientation is their primary trait can sometimes portray gay characters as an “other” with little depth. Is this problematic in the formation of public opinion for same-sex marriage? Writing in the Huffington Post in 2011, Zack Rosen argues that one of the common stereotypes of the gay television character, “the effeminate glitter boy,” isn’t an offensive stereotype so much as it is lazy television writing.

This is probably not an altogether bad thing. Might the fact that popular culture broadly embraces a stereotype–so long as it’s not an overtly offensive one–be a cultural victory in the battle for social equality? In other words, network television often traffics in stereotypes, consistently broadcasting lowest-common-denominator content to gain mass appeal. This is the nature of their business. And though this can result in poor storytelling, it also signifies that a large portion of the American public is ready to face the issue in a casual but supportive way. Appearing on the same broadcast of Morning Edition mentioned above, Will & Grace co-creator (and panelist for the Feb. 4 Conversation) Max Mutchnick pointed out that Cam and Mitchell on ABC’s Modern Family light-heartedly confronted the issue of “gaybies,” or same-sex couples adopting children. And while Modern Family‘s writers don’t necessarily shy away from the use of stereotypical catty comments or effeminacy, Cam and Mitchell are both extraordinarily endearing characters that encourage viewers to consider same-sex marriage in a positive light.

In sum, the real battles for social equality and same-sex marriage rights are going to occur where you’d expect them to: in the courts and the legislature. On television, one shouldn’t necessarily be offended by the “lazy storytelling” that stereotypes of gay characters and theme might bring about. Even if popular culture might sometimes focus on sexual orientation as if it’s the only important aspect of character, it’s hardly discouraging that mass audiences have embraced–at least in part–prominent gay themes on television.

Here are two essays by the Forum’s Thane Rosenbaum about Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch. Mayor Koch was a guest of the Forum’s in January of last year.

The first is in The Huffington Post and the second is in Jewish Week.