banner

PENNumbra is pleased to host responses to any scholarly content published by the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, including print articles, PENNumbra Debates, or even other PENNumbra Responses. Responses should not exceed 3,000 words within the main text, nor should they exceed 1,250 words within the footnotes. Scholars interested in contributing to PENNumbra should email the PENNumbra Editor at online@pennumbra.com.

FEATURED RESPONSES
Accomodating Integration
by Martha Minow
In response to Integrating Accommodation by Elizabeth F. Emens
Professor Minow argues that Emens’ analysis is problematically built out of the view of the individual as “distinctive, alone, and unique” which results in “pervasive inattention to relational, iterative, and collective features of social experience.” Minow suggests a variety of “alternative frames” that would conceptualize “inclusive human settings . . . that benefit everyone” and better serve Emens’ integrative purposes.
Caste and Disability: The Moral Foundations of the ADA
by Cass R. Sunstein
In response to Integrating Accommodation by Elizabeth F. Emens
Professor Sunstein proposes that the foundations of Emens’ approach can be linked with the notion that “morally irrelevant differences have been turned, without sufficient justification, into a systematic source of social disadvantage” and, thus, may be seen as a reflection of an anticaste principle that underlies American law. Thus, Emens’ focus on third-party benefits should be seen “not as a diversion from the fundamental goals of the ADA, but as an effort to reconceive and deepen them.”
Designing the Architecture for Integrating Accomodation: An Institutionalist Commentary
by Susan Sturm
In response to Integrating Accommodation by Elizabeth F. Emens
Professor Sturm locates Emens’ proposal within the context of broader approaches that “encourage institutional redesign as a strategy for achieving inclusion and full participation of marginalized groups.” Sturm, however, suggests a further step that would move past individual cases and “shift the focus into the institution.” This move would then “encourage integration of the structure and process of accommodation into day-to-day governance” of institutions themselves.
RECENT RESPONSES
Is Accomplice Liability Superfluous?
by R.A. Duff

Moore on Complicity and Causality
by John Gardner

Antitrust Enforcement in the Health Care Industry: A Battleground of Competing Paradigms
by James F. Blumstein

Some Questions About Emotions and Risk Evaluation
by Michael Stocker

Diverse Conceptions of Emotions in Risk Regulation
by Peter H. Huang

Emotions, Values, and the Construction of Risk
by Susan A. Bandes


Previous Responses From: