Tenure politics and the feminist scholar.

• Author: Arriola, Elvia R.
• Position: Why a Feminist Law Journal?

1. CONFRONTING OBSTACLES

   I begin my remarks here today by assuming that someone else in this symposium has affirmed the positive role played by the feminist law journal, as a material byproduct of the women's movement in academia, in shaping the discipline of feminist legal theory, its methodology, visions, and goals. Yet, the symposium organizers asked us to consider whether there are obstacles that stand in the way of this significant role for the feminist review. I find it ironic that this question has been posed to someone like me who views herself as a wounded feminist scholar--wounded by the system of white male supremacy in legal education, but even more so wounded by my own past internalized attitudes (1) of resistance to my spint (2) as a critical Latina, lesbian, and feminist scholar.

   Let me explore some further assumptions embedded in the question of what exactly compromises the effectiveness of the feminist law journal. The symposium organizers have posed that question to those whom presumably are interested in publishing feminist research and preferably, though not exclusively, in feminist law journals. Initially, I asked myself whether this was a question of audience or mission. I will talk about the question of mission later. As a question of audience, however, I could not really see a problem. Presumably, those writing for the feminist law journal are probably also regular readers of feminist reviews. So, the editors of the journals should continue doing what they are doing. That is, unless the staff and resources of the journal are so compromised that they cannot produce quality work, or those desiring to publish feminist articles are themselves compromised b y other conflicting goals and needs that interfere with t he production of quality feminist writings. In which case we may have a problem.

   I have several points to offer in this light, as someone who has written and published feminist scholarship and expects to continue doing so.

   1. Personally, I owe my career development to the existence of feminist law journals. My very first publication appeared in the then only existing feminist law review in the country, the Women's Rights Law Reporter. (3)

   2. I continued intentionally publishing in feminist law journals when the opportunity arose because I liked the quality of the editing skills, talent, and feedback offered by feminist review editors.

   3. The feminist law journal has a history of struggle for recognition, (4) but that is no reason to abandon the project.

   4. I would hope that the members and staff of feminist journals do not internalize the attitude that they aren't sufficiently mainstream to serve as part of the untenured professor's successful publishing track record. This latter point does not mean there isn't a real tension between the journals' goals and those of new scholars (e.g., when the latest bright star in feminist writing chooses not to publish with a review because she or he believes it will affect her or his prospects of faculty approval required for tenure).

   5. When the editors of a feminist law journal succumb to the view that as a specialized review, it isn't sufficiently mainstream (ergo not good enough), they have allowed themselves to be defined by the very power structure that is the reason for the journal's existence. Is it not, after all, the role of the alternative, feminist, critical law review to destabilize the status quo? That is, to provide a voice that resists definitions of what is "neutral," "right," and "good" according to the presumptions of an establishment which has historically been in the hands of powerful white men?

   This last point encourages me to offer added words to the untenured scholar (or future feminist scholar):

   1. Your work and your vision are needed today.

   2. Beware of the subtle and not-so-subtle forms of resistance to those, like yourself, who take on the mission of criticizing the norms of masculinity in law and society. The academy remains largely controlled by white males and there is tremendous

   resistance in some of these institutions to the critical and/or feminist voice. There are individuals in some of these institutions whose personal and professional agenda is to undermine the efforts to institutionalize the critical voice through, for...