Judicial clerkships are typically characterized as an unadulterated good—lifelong mentor-mentee relationships between judges and law clerks that confer professional benefits. But little information exists to help law students identify positive work environments and avoid judges who mistreat their clerks.

At the Legal Accountability Project, Aliza Shatzman works to ensure that law clerks have positive clerkship experiences, and to provide resources to those who do not. In this conversation, Aliza describes her personal experiences with gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation by a former DC Judge. Aliza also explains how Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not extend to federal judicial employees, the need for greater diversity within judicial chambers, and the work LAP is doing to support greater judicial accountability.

Topics covered with timestamps:

· 3:01 – Discussing what clerkships are, how they are messaged, and how students go about getting clerkships.

· 8:23 – Aliza discusses her experience with harassment and mistreatment during her judicial clerkship and the reputational harm inflicted on her by her former judge following her clerkship.

· 13:11 – Discussing the power disparity between judges and law clerks and how that disparity and the threat of retribution and reputational harm makes it difficult for law clerks to speak out in the face of mistreatment.

· 17:17 – Discussing the mental health consequences for judicial law clerks who are mistreated by judges.

· 19:32 – Aliza explains how she went on to found the Legal Accountability Project following her negative clerkship experience.

· 22:22 – Discussing the problem of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act not extending to federal judicial employees and the role Law Schools can play in protecting students who will go on to be law clerks.

· 30:55 – Discussing the importance of judicial ethics and the state of the judiciary overall regarding ethics and accountability.

· 34:04 – Aliza discusses the centralized clerkships database being developed by the Legal Accountability Project—tech that democratizes information about judges so law students have more information about judges before making decisions on where to clerk.

· 37:39 – Discussing the lack of diversity in judicial chambers and the hiring practices of judges as reported in the recent publication, Law Clerk Selection and Diversity: Insights From Fifty Sitting Judges of the Federal Courts of Appeals.

· 43:27 – Aliza discusses the benefits of diversity in judicial chambers to support fair and equitable legal problem solving.

· 46:24 – Discussing the role of judges in judicial reform and the work of the Legal Accountability Project.

In his best-selling book, The Color of Law, Richard Rothstein demolished the de facto segregation myth that Black and White Americans live separately by choice, providing the most forceful argument ever published on how federal, state, and local governments gave rise to and reinforced neighborhood segregation. Aware that twenty-first-century segregation continues to promote entrenched inequality and underlie our most serious social problems, Richard has partnered with housing policy expert Leah Rothstein to write JUST ACTION: How to Challenge Racial Segregation Enacted Under the Color of Law.

JUST ACTION provides bona fide solutions, based on decades of study and experience, that activists and their supporters can undertake in their own communities to address historical inequities, and shows how community groups can press those in government and the private sector that imposed segregation to finally take responsibility for reversing the harm, creating victories that might finally challenge residential segregation and help remedy America’s profoundly unconstitutional past.

In this episode of the DEI Podcast, Max sits down with civil rights attorney and Senior Advisor at Democracy Forward, Sunu Chandy, to explore the shifting legal landscape of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs over a year after the Supreme Court’s historic decision to strike down affirmative action in college admissions.

Last June marked the one-year anniversary of this landmark ruling. In its wake, anti-equity organizations have sought to weaponize the courts against a range of DEI programs, creating legal challenges that have generated significant media attention and deterred law firms, executives, and administrators who fear litigation could stifle efforts to create fair and equitable workplaces.

But aside from the headlines, just how much have those suits actually accomplished? Have they had any real impact in the courts, or are they merely expensive distractions, with their earned media providing louder bark than legal bite?

Sunu recently led a new report that highlights key analyses following Democracy Forward’s review of over seventy cases brought by anti-equity actors against DEI-related programs across various contexts. The findings challenge the conventional wisdom surrounding these cases and suggest that SFFA has not fundamentally altered the legal frameworks in the vast majority of public and private sector contexts.

Read the full report from Democracy Forward here: https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/DF-DEI-Report_Final-Proof_070224.pdf