Saturday, January 17, 2009

ASLH conference open thread

The deadline for submitting proposals for the 2009 American Society for Legal History conference is coming up on February 6. For this meeting, most panelists get on the program through full panel proposals, rather than individual paper submissions (although individual papers are welcome, and sometimes are successful).
A reader asked how legal historians get in touch with each other to find others to form a panel with. Probably the most common way, other than word of mouth, is through H-Law, the legal history listserv. The sign-up page is here.
Not all legal historians are H-Law subscribers, however. To provide another venue, I thought it might be helpful to use the comment section for this post. If you are looking for co-panelists, you can post your paper description and contact information in a comment. I recommend that you do not post a phone number, and that you spell out the "@" in your e-mail address. (i.e. jane.doe "at" Comments are moderated (to avoid spam), so there may be a delay before your comment is posted, especially when I am on the road January 20-23.
I hope this is helpful. Best of luck!

Update: I have temporarily changed the blog settings so that anyone can post a comment without registering with Google or Open ID, just to make it easier to connect with co-panelists. If this results in too much spam or other difficulties, I'll need to change it back. Comments are still moderated.

One more suggestion: I suspect that those seeking co-panelists are more likely to get responses if you identify yourselves. That also gets the word out about you and your interesting work! I will allow all serious submissions in the comments, however.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I am interested in finding co-panelists for the ASLH conference. Below is a description of my paper. I can be reached at ssb3091 at Thanks!

This paper provides a broad historical overview of the dynamic among the press, Supreme Court justices, and public opinion in the twentieth century. Using archival sources, including the justices’ papers, it addresses the impact of public image concerns on the justices’ communicative choices and the Court’s decision-making process. I illustrate that the justices have carefully managed their public image through strategic decision making, direct engagement with the public, and overt and behind the scenes relations with reporters. The paper also explains public attitudes towards the Court – in particular, the persistence of “diffuse” institutional support for the Court, which has historically remained high despite unpopular decisions or criticism of individual justices. This phenomenon, I argue, can be traced in part to media coverage of the Court, which has revolved around two competing images: the Court as a sacred institution and the justices as flawed, individual “personalities.” The impact of this interpretive framework on public opinion can be seen in the public response to the court-packing crisis of 1937, the controversy surrounding the Warren Court, and the continued persistence of broad institutional support for the Court in recent years despite declining confidence in the justices.