Letters from Readers

For Men Only?
Honorable Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told California Lawyer: "I've said quite often that if I were to invent an affirmative action plan, it would be to give men every incentive to be close to children." ["No Ordinary Times," Legally Speaking, November.] Does this mean she would give fathers affirmative action in child custody cases? Now that's exciting!
Marc E. Angelucci
National Coalition for Men
Los Angeles

Most men who have children would be much more involved in their upbringing if: (1) in cases of divorce, women didn't usually get custody; (2) mothers did not so frequently act as "gatekeepers" and/or denigrate child raising efforts the fathers put forth; (3) employers encouraged new fathers to take time off, and/or didn't just plain penalize them for doing so; (4) general social and legal attitudes didn't see fathers as disposable and/or vestigial at best, and a nuisance or danger at worst; and (5) the government didn't reward single mothers for staying single and/or having more babies, etc. Commentary like Justice Ginsburg's falls into the category of "insult to injury."
Matt Campbell
Rochester, New York

"We would have a healthier world, I think, if men shared women's responsibility for bringing up the next generation," says Justice Ginsburg. I find it telling that despite her effort to deconstruct the gender system that associates men with work and women with family, she would still refer to bringing up the next generation as a woman's responsibility that men can share. Does she still see work as a man's responsibility that women can simply share in? And why is it that the blame lies squarely on men for needing "incentives?" Isn't she aware that there are millions of men who want to be close to their children but are denied the opportunity by their exes and the courts? It's becoming truly tiresome that those who claim that women's failure to achieve is due to discrimination are unwilling to acknowledge that, at least in part, men's failure in family relations is also due to discrimination.
Mark Neil
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Zombie-speak
In "Attack of the Living Dead Languages" [Legal Ease, November], what Howard Posner fails to perceive are the myriad reasons and rationales for the overuse of dead-language terms in the legal realm. To wit, protection against diminution of the legal profession's stature amongst the population of legal ne'er-do-wells who know not the providence nor import of this most prestigious of professions, the need to keep the muddled masses uninformed of the legal linguistic minutiae that requires them to hire those scoundrels they so despise, and the ebullient feelings derived by those scoundrels for having outwitted the masses that have no recourse but to hire them because they can make neither heads nor tails of the legalese set forth within the instruments that they have no alternative but to hire them to interpret and pontificate upon. Thus, the game goes on. (Note: I am an attorney working in human resources in the public sector.)
Richard F. Kunz
Pasadena

False Light
Thanks for "Learning the Hard Way: For-Profit Colleges Pay Dearly for Their Students' Discontent" [October]. When may we expect an article about the rampant falsification of admissions and graduate-employment data by large, well-known public and private law schools? The latest school to admit publicizing inaccurate numbers is the University of Illinois College of Law, but there are dozens of others.
David L. Amkraut
Los Angeles

Wow. I just want to say, what a great article, and an important one. Your journalism continues to be top-notch. You're covering stories no one else is covering.
Chris Valle-Riestra
Oakland

Partisan
Only left-wing partisan Erwin Chemerinsky ["Landmarks to Come?" October] would have the temerity to tout Obamacare as a "signature affordable health care law" but call Arizona's wildly popular illegal immigration law "controversial." But later, he writes about a split in circuit courts over the Democrats' massive government takeover of health care, which proves that law is controversial.
Alfred G. Rava
San Diego

Electrifying
You've done a fantastic job of creating an easily readable magazine in electronic format. Whoever or whatever did the work deserves kudos.
James J. Eischen Jr.
Cardiff by the Sea

You've done a very good job at this online magazine, and I read every issue - page to page. I have no time for hard copy anymore.
Benjamin C. Graves
Santa Rosa

I viewed the October edition of your magazine on my iPad 2, thanks to your new app. I look forward to future editions in a similar fashion. Keep up the good work.
Steven J. Robbins
San Diego

Correction: In "A Run on the Water Bank" [December], Golden Gate University law professor Paul Kibel's name was misspelled. California Lawyer regrets the error.

CLARIFICATION: The Alliance of California Judges favors the dispersal of state funds directly to the trial courts ["What It Will Take," November].

---