Feeding our dialogue about workplace bullying

Hello dear readers, I’ve collect some of my recent contributions to the dialogue about workplace bullying and related topics. I’m including several that I wrote about in earlier posts in case you missed them.

Article excerpted in popular law school casebook

I’m happy to share that my first law review article about workplace bullying and U.S. employment law, “The Phenomenon of ‘Workplace Bullying’ and the Need for Status-Blind Hostile Work Environment Protection” (Georgetown Law Journal, 2000), has been excerpted in the new edition of a leading employment law casebook used in law schools, Mark Rothstein, Lance Liebman, Kimberly A. Yuracko, Charlotte Garden & Susan E. Cancelosi, Employment Law, Cases and Materials (10th ed., 2024).

In U.S. law school courses covering specific areas of law, casebooks usually comprise the main reading assignments. A typical casebook is a mix of edited judicial decisions, statutes, and regulations, often framed by the editors’ own commentaries and excerpts from legal treatises and law review articles.

This excerpt (see photo above) is part of a modest milestone of sorts. You see, the Rothstein casebook is, by my estimation, the first to include a standalone subsection on workplace bullying. Whereas major U.S. textbooks in fields such as organizational psychology and organizational behavior have included coverage of workplace bullying for some time, those in the legal field have lagged behind — in part because of the resistance of American legal jurisdictions to enact express protections against workplace bullying.

This means that law students assigned the Rothstein casebook will likely be introduced to the topic of workplace bullying, even as advocacy efforts to enact the workplace anti-bullying laws such as the Healthy Workplace Bill continue.

Although the Rothstein casebook is not freely accessible online, you may download a pdf of my 2000 Georgetown Law Journal article without charge here.

Call for amending OSH Act to include risks of serious psychological harm at work

Last fall, my essay “Expanding Coverage of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Act to Protect Workers from Severe Psychological Harm” (freely downloadable pdf here) was published in the Suffolk University Law Review.  I used the opportunity to propose that we have a serious conversation about expanding the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) to cover workers from workplace hazards that are causing or likely to cause serious psychological harm. Here’s the abstract:

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) was designed to safeguard workers from hazardous working conditions that can cause serious physical harm and death. Since becoming law, the ongoing toll of physical injuries and fatalities at work reminds us of the compelling need for the OSH Act and its many state equivalents to protect workers. In addition, various research and public education initiatives are now spotlighting workplace hazards that severely threaten the psychological health of today’s employees. Toxic work environments generally, the extraordinary workplace stressors prompted by the COVID pandemic, and workplace bullying and abuse, among other concerns, have underscored the human costs of trauma, fear, anxiety, and stress.

Against this backdrop, this essay encourages a needed conversation about extending the regulatory reach of the OSH Act to cover severe psychological harms at work and to anticipate the impact of added enforcement responsibilities on the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Most significantly, it will examine two potential policy responses: First, applying the current OSH Act to workplace bullying, pursuant to a theory first advanced by Professor Susan Harthill; and second, amending the OSH Act to expressly cover workplace hazards that may cause severe psychological harm.

Four basic postulates about women and workplace bullying

Recently my law review essay, “Four Basic Postulates Concerning Women and Workplace Bullying in the United States” (freely downloadable pdf here), was published in the FIU Law Review (2023), based at the Florida International University College of Law. It appeared as a collection of invited responses to FIU law professor Kerri Lynn Stone’s excellent book, Panes of the Glass Ceiling: The Unspoken Beliefs Behind the Law’s Failure to Help Women Achieve Professional Parity (2022).

I wrote the essay to propose and expound upon four basic postulates concerning women and bullying in the American workplace:

• First, “women are likely to be disproportionately targeted for workplace bullying, a reality that carries multifaceted implications.”
• Second, “men are disproportionately the perpetrators of workplace bullying, another reality that carries important significance for understanding relational workplace mistreatment.”
• Third, “complicated dynamics are in play when women are alleged perpetrators of workplace bullying.”
• Fourth, “the enactment of workplace anti-bullying laws can help to fill some of the legal gaps confronted by women who face both bullying and discriminatory harassment at work.”

Podcast episode about HR and workplace bullying

Last fall, Dr. Gary Namie (founder, Workplace Bullying Institute) and I jointly appeared on a podcast episode, “Wiping Out Workplace Bullying,” as part of HRMorning‘s “Voices of HR” series. The series is hosted by Berta Aldrich, a high-ranking senior executive turned author, executive trainer, and coach who engaged us in a very lively conversation.

The episode runs for almost an hour, but for those interested in a more pro-active role for HR in addressing workplace bullying, I think it is useful. Here are the links:

• Apple podcasts (audio), click here.
• Spotify (audio), click here.
• YouTube (video), click here.

Podcast episode about personality characteristics associated with bullying

Earlier this week, I was interviewed about bullying generally, and workplace bullying specifically, by the Breakfast Show of the Voices of Islam podcast, based in London. Most of the questions surrounded personality traits associated with bullying and bullies, which gave me an opportunity to discuss how both qualities of empathy and Adverse Childhood Experiences can elevate the risks of someone becoming a bully or a target.

You may access the podcast episode from SoundCloud click here without charge (free registration necessary). My segment starts at the 1:28 mark (1 hour, 28 minutes) and runs for about 12 minutes.

Origin story: How serving on a non-profit foundation board opened doors to new opportunities

Pages from the PILF fundraising dinner journal

When I discuss career planning with my students, I often urge them to pursue interesting pro bono and volunteer activities not only for the contributions they can make, but also because these activities may open doors to new opportunities.

That certainly was my experience of serving on the board of directors of a small charitable foundation based at New York University, my legal alma mater, as relatively recent graduate of the Law School.

Unlike many law professors whose aspirations to enter academe were present during their law school days, my path to this world was not nearly as intentional. I entered law school wanting to become a public interest lawyer and eventually pursue a career in politics and public policy. During the years immediately following graduation, I was squarely headed in those directions, starting my legal career as Legal Aid lawyer in New York City and becoming active in a local reform Democratic club in central Brooklyn. Eventually, however, the bloody world of academe would draw me away from the bloodsport of litigation and politics.

NYU PILF

Four years after graduating from law school, I accepted an invitation to join the board of directors of the NYU Public Interest Law Foundation (PILF), a small foundation that gave seed-money grants to fledgling public interest and community law projects. The PILF board of directors was comprised of law students (who served dual roles as officers), NYU law faculty, and various lawyers and legal activists. PILF raised most of its money from NYU alums who pledged a share of their income and from New York City law firms that co-sponsored an annual fundraising banquet, which typically drew several hundred people.

I served for four years on the PILF board, the latter three as its chairperson. It was enormously satisfying to be part of an organization whose main purpose was to support new, creative initiatives for providing legal services to underserved groups and for engaging in law reform work. Overall, we had an energetic, high-morale cohort of board members, and our work earned two awards from the National Association for Public Interest Law (now Equal Justice Works) for overall program growth.

In the process, I so enjoyed working with the student officers to organize our events. And I learned a ton about how non-profit organizations work, while building skills and insights that I’ve drawn upon throughout my career.

Unanticipated door opener

One of the PILF board members happened to be a co-coordinator of the Lawyering Program at NYU Law School, an innovative, full-year course that introduces first-year law students to essential legal skills, such as legal writing, research, client interviewing and counseling, negotiation, and advocacy. After one of our board meetings, I casually asked my board colleague if the Lawyering Program might be hiring new instructors any time soon. She said yes and invited me to send her a resume.

I’m not sure what prompted me to make that inquiry. At the time, I was serving as an assistant attorney general in the Labor Bureau of the New York State Attorney General’s office. Although I enjoyed many aspects of the job and worked with excellent attorneys, I knew that I didn’t want to be a litigator for the rest of my legal career. However, I didn’t have a clear idea of where I wanted to go. At that juncture, I certainly did not have an academic career in mind. Teaching in the Lawyering Program simply sounded like an interesting opportunity.

Long story short, I went through a series of interviews and received an offer to join the Program as an entry-level instructor, which I enthusiastically accepted.

I loved teaching in the Lawyering Program. It was very hard, teaching-intensive work, quite a grind for an academic position. I stayed for three years (the maximum permitted for instructors), serving as a co-coordinator of the Program during my third year. During that time, I gained experience and credentials that would make me competitive for tenure-track and other long-term law teaching jobs. I put myself “on the market,” as they say, and came out of it with a tenure-track appointment at Suffolk University Law School in Boston, where I’ve been ever since.

Imagining alternatives

Let’s reverse engineer this path and imagine that I had turned down that invitation to join the PILF board of directors. It’s quite possible that my career sojourn wouldn’t have been nearly as rich and rewarding as it has turned out to be.

Of course, frequent pondering on the “what ifs” in one’s life is a recipe for crazy-making speculation based on a known reality vs. an open-ended, anything-goes alternative. It’s probably wiser to dwell on decisions made and evaluate them accordingly.

In my case, I see two decisions here that led to very good things: (1) joining the PILF board of directors; (2) returning to NYU to teach in its Lawyering Program. I firmly recall making both decisions without reservation, based largely on my belief that I would enjoy these associations immensely. And I did. The bonus was that both led to unforeseen opportunities.

On occasion, I encounter those who make career moves based only on perceived sure bets. Their career moves are carefully plotted, and their trajectories are carefully planned. They avoid even minor risks and pass on commitments of time and energy that potentially divert them from their plan.

Honestly, that may be the best bet toward success. But it also can lead to disappointment, either because one fails to reach certain goals despite their disciplined efforts or finds that what they thought they wanted turned out to be lacking in material ways.

My career approach has been a little different, trying to split the difference between an inflexible path and a series of random choices. The lesson from the story shared here, as I see it, is that I trusted my strong instincts about two opportunities, despite that neither came with any guarantees beyond their own shelf lives.

I’m hardly the only person who has enjoyed some successes by making decisions in such a manner. But at a time when FOMO (fear of missing out) and ROI (return on investment) seem to control too much decision making about vocational choice, I’m happy to put in a good word for taking smart chances now and then.

***

On origin stories: During the ongoing process of culling the mounds of printed material in my possession, I’m often finding stuff that brings back very meaningful memories. Some recall certain origin stories, i.e., those moments that led to significant, defining things in my life. This is the second of three that I’ll be sharing on this blog, including lessons learned from them. My first recollection, “Origin story: Stumbling upon an interview about workplace bullying,” can be found here.

Autobiographical reflections: Mark Satin’s “Up From Socialism”

At the start of my second year as an instructor in the Lawyering program at New York University School of Law in 1992, I looked at my new class list of first-year students and saw a familiar name: Mark Satin. I would quickly confirm that this was the very Mark Satin who had written and edited a self-styled, left leaning yet “post-liberal” political newsletter titled New Options, which I had enjoyed as a subscriber.

Mark was 46 years old when he arrived at NYU Law. He brought with him an established reputation as an anti-war and left activist during the 1960s and as a progressive political writer during the 1970s. His first book, New Age Politics: Healing Self and Society (1976 + several revised editions), had generated considerable discussion as an attempt to synthesize and make sense of the politics of the New Left during the 60s and 70s.

After many years of writing and editing New Options, Mark sought to gain a stronger understanding of, and greater impact within, the societal mainstream. He figured that law school would give him some insights on how the worlds of law, policy, and commerce operated, so he set his sights on obtaining a legal education and earning a law degree. He took the Law School Admissions Test, filed his applications, and eventually landed on my 1L class list at NYU Law.

***

During our overlapping years at NYU, Mark and I shared many conversations about law, politics, legal education, and the general state of things. He was thoroughly invested as a law student, typically on his own terms and with a genuine curiosity about the Generation Xers who comprised the heart of the law school student body. Always attentive to emerging trends, and sometimes a key player in shaping them, he wanted to write a broad-ranging paper that surveyed and analyzed the linkages between law and psychology in many different aspects of legal thought and practice. That monumental research project would lead to a published article, “Law and Psychology: A Movement Whose Time Has Come,” in the Annual Survey of American Law, one of NYU’s student-edited law reviews.

Upon graduation, Mark held true to his goal of experiencing more of the mainstream, joining a small boutique business law firm in Manhattan’s Rockefeller Center. But sooner than later, he couldn’t resist the continuing siren call of writing and publishing. As the new millennium approached, Mark’s evolving social and political outlook were leading him to a place that he called the “radical middle.” His next newsletter creation was called just that. He wrote and published Radical Middle Newsletter (1999- 2009) (articles and back issues freely available here), and authored a book, Radical Middle: The Politics We Need Now (2004).

***

Mark has brought together the chapters of a rich life in an engaging autobiography, Up From Socialism: My 60-Year Search for a Healing New Radical Politics (2023). Do not expect a political tome here. This is a life recalled and reflected upon in a first-person, journalistic style. It is very opinionated, not overly concerned with political correctness, and sometimes rather detailed about the author’s romantic connections, mostly with women of a certain political leaning.

And if I may put on my dime store amateur therapist’s hat, Up From Socialism is about the author’s search for healing as much as anything else. It flips an old progressive, feminist chestnut: The political is personal. If you doubt my assessment, then go to the last sentence of the second-to-last paragraph in Mark’s book. I don’t know if he has another book in mind, but if so, that’s its thesis statement and perhaps the starting point for shaping the rest of Mark’s life. (I won’t give it away, but has much to do with kindness.)

As for this book, I’m glad that Mark wrote it, and I’m glad that I read it. If any of this strikes your curiosity, then I’m happy to recommend it.

***

I should disclose that I am a supporting bit player in Up From Socialism, and I have supported Mark’s various endeavors with board service, editorial feedback, and modest financial contributions. Upon Mark’s invitation, I reviewed an earlier draft of the book to provide feedback and suggestions, concentrating on the law school/legal practice chapter.

In addition, as I wrote in a 2019 blog piece, “Workplace bullying, worker dignity, and therapeutic jurisprudence: Finding my center of gravity” (link here), “the overlaps between Mark Satin’s ‘radical middle’ and my back-in-the-day brand of liberalism appear to be many, at least if my other affiliations with the workplace anti-bullying movement, therapeutic jurisprudence movement, and human dignity movement are any indication.”

***

Editor’s Note: After I posted this piece, Mark Satin sent this reply by email and asked that it be added. I’m happy to do so:

COMMENT ON DAVID’S REVIEW OF MY BOOK, FROM MARK SATIN

Either David is being much too modest here, or he simply does not realize how much his perspective has contributed to my Up From Socialism book.  That book is, among other things, an exposé of the nastiness, competitiveness, ego-drivenness, and BULLYING that went on in the New Left of the 1960s, the supposedly more idealistic “transformational” movements of the 1970s-1990s, and the supposedly more buttoned-down radical-centrist activities of our day – not to mention what’s going on in the new New Left!

In Up From Socialism, I trace much of this awfulness back to many activists’ poor relationships with self, parents, and partners; that’s why there’s little separation in my book between the personal and the political.  And that’s why the explicitly stated moral of my book is, “Only by becoming kind people can we create a kind world.”  I think David has been saying the same thing in his own way, and he’s been saying it longer than I … I am a more or less Bad Guy through much of my book!

Delving into the Dark Triad

I’m working on a law review article that will examine how insights about trauma and traumatization can inform law reform efforts. Part of that work involves a consideration of the psychological make-up of those who engage in abusive behaviors. Those whose personalities encompass the “Dark Triad,” i.e., a combination of narcissistic, sociopathic/psychopathic, and Machiavellian traits, come up frequently in these discussions. In fact, more than a few perpetrators of workplace bullying and abuse are said to meet the Dark Triad profile.

The article pictured in the screen shot above, Delroy L. Paulhus & Kevin M. Williams, “The Dark Triad of Personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy,” Journal of Research in Personality (2002) (link here; account necessary), was the first articulation of the Dark Triad, analyzing how the three traits may overlap and interact.

More recently, the Dark Triad is the centerpiece of a new article by Arthur C. Brooks for The Atlantic magazine, “The Sociopaths Among Us–And How to Avoid Them” (link here). Here’s how he dives into the topic:

We all have stories of meeting people who appeared wonderful at first but turned out to be just awful. Perhaps it was a charming suitor, or a charismatic colleague, or a fascinating new friend. They attracted you on initial impression, but before long, you started to notice behaviors that gave you pause. Maybe it was a little shading of the truth here and there, or a bit too much vanity and selfishness. Perhaps they constantly played the victim, or took credit for other people’s work.

Or maybe your disillusionment with the person was not gradual, but through a dramatic—and dramatically unpleasant—episode. All it may take is a minor disagreement, and suddenly, you get screamed at, threatened with retaliation, or reported to HR. This kind of encounter leaves you, understandably, baffled, hurt, and confused.

Very likely, this person was a “Dark Triad” personality. The term was coined by the psychologists Delroy Paulhus and Kevin Williams in 2002 for people with three salient personality characteristics: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and a measurable level of psychopathy. These people confuse and hurt you, because they act in a way that doesn’t seem to make sense. As one scholar aptly described the ones whose behavior shades more obviously into psychopathy, these are “social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets.”

For the curious, there’s a lot of stuff out there about the Dark Triad, as a quick Google search will reveal. To explore the Dark Triad in specific settings, simply search “Dark Triad and —” to limit the scope of what comes up. When I get a chance, I’d like to do a deeper read into the abundant popular and scholarly literature on the Dark Triad at work. 

Judith Herman’s “Truth and Repair,” Part 3: Applications to therapeutic jurisprudence

In this, my third look at Dr. Judith Herman’s important new examination of psychological trauma, Truth and Repair: How Trauma Survivors Envision Justice (2023), I would like to connect the theme of trauma and justice to therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ), a multidisciplinary school of theory and practice that examines the therapeutic and anti-therapeutic properties of law, legal processes, and legal institutions.

To summarize: Dr. Herman holds that the final stage of recovering from trauma is justice, reasoning that “(i)f trauma is truly a social problem, and indeed it is, then recovery cannot be simply a private, individual matter.” She identifies acknowledgment, apology, and accountability as the key elements of justice. Also, she identifies restitution, rehabilitation (of the offender), and prevention as the key elements of healing.

Therapeutic jurisprudence

Basic TJ principles hold that, whenever reasonably possible, outcomes of legal events (e.g., litigation, negotiation, or drafting of documents such as wills and trusts) should affirm the dignity and promote the psychological health of the parties involved.

These general goals are a strong match for Dr. Herman’s elements of justice and healing.

Truth and Repair frequently endorses restorative justice (RJ) — a concept and practice often mentioned in the same breath as TJ — as a promising avenue toward helping trauma survivors obtain justice. Herman invokes Australian criminologist and RJ adherent John Braithwaite in observing that RJ is about focusing on “repairing the harm of a crime rather than punishing offenders for breaking a law.” In fact, Braithwaite’s own work has closely analyzed what he sees as the similarities and differences between RJ and TJ.

I’ve noted on many occasions that therapeutic jurisprudence scholarship and practice need to better incorporate trauma-informed understandings and perspectives. Dr. Herman’s positing that justice is a final recovery step for trauma survivors significantly helps us to link trauma-informed prevention and response to TJ, and vice-versa.

***

Additional Reading

For free access to John Braithwaite’s comparison and contrast of TJ and RJ, “Restorative Justice and Therapeutic Jurisprudence,” Criminal Law Bulletin (2002), go here.

For free access to my extensive survey of therapeutic jurisprudence, “Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Foundations, Expansion, and Assessment,” University of Miami Law Review (2021), go here.

 

Judith Herman’s “Truth and Repair,” Part I: Trauma survivors’ perspectives on justice and healing

In 1992, psychiatrist Judith L. Herman shared her groundbreaking analysis of psychological trauma, Trauma and Recovery. For years this has been among the “must read” books  on the topic, and Dr. Herman has remained a leading authority in the field. In a 2022 edition, she would add an epilogue that examines new understandings and developments in trauma research and treatment during the ensuing decades.

Throughout this time, I sensed that a lot of folks who are deeply interested in trauma wondered if Dr. Herman might have another major work in her, one that might advance our understanding of this important topic even further. This welcomed volume has arrived in the form of Truth and Repair: How Trauma Survivors Envision Justice (2023).

In this three-part series of posts, I’m taking a good look at Truth and Repair and applying its precepts to two topics that recur often on this blog, workplace bullying and therapeutic jurisprudence.

The path to Truth and Repair

In her new book, Dr. Herman summarizes that Trauma and Recovery identified three general stages of recovery from trauma, all closely focused on the individual survivor: The first stage is “the complex and demanding task of establishing safety in the present, with the goal of protection from further violence.” The second stage involves “revisit[ing] the past in order to grieve and make meaning of the trauma.” And the third stage involves a “refocus on the present and future, expanding and deepening…relationships with a wider community and…sense of possibility in life.”

It was the contemplation of a “fourth and final stage of recovery,” that of justice, which prompted Herman to work towards a new book. After all, she reasoned, “(i)f trauma is truly a social problem, and indeed it is, then recovery cannot be simply a private, individual matter.” 

With this new focus, Herman interviewed “twenty-six women and four men who are survivors of childhood sexual abuse, sexual assault, sex trafficking, sexual harassment, and/or domestic violence.” The results of these conversations helped her to conceptualize elements of justice and healing from a trauma survivor’s perspective.

Elements of justice and truth

Through her interviews, Dr. Herman identified three precepts of justice and truth, as defined by trauma survivors:

Acknowledgment — “The first precept of survivors’ justice is the desire for community acknowledgment that a wrong has been done,” for public recognition of a “survivor’s claim to justice must be the moral community’s first act of solidarity” with the survivor.

Apology — Perpetrators should provide a genuine apology for their traumatizing offenses, taking responsibility for their actions and offering to make amends. In some instances, an apology may “create the possibility of repairing a relationship.”

Accountability — While trauma survivors interviewed by Herman were ambivalent about punishment for perpetrators and complicit bystanders, many were drawn to the broader precept of accountability for individuals and institutions. Ideas behind restorative justice — a movement that embraces values of “nondomination, empowerment, and respectful listening” — resonated strongly in this context.

Elements of healing and repair

Dr. Herman’s interviews also identified three precepts of healing and repair, again as defined by trauma survivors:

Restitution — Restitution can take the form of money to cover a survivor’s losses and recovery, but it also can be defined in more systemic ways, such as creating more humane justice systems and safer institutional spaces (including workplaces). This broader take on restitution expands on the traditional legal notion of “made whole,” typically defined largely as financial compensation.

Rehabilitation — Because our justice systems, especially those governing criminal behavior, are vested mainly in the objective of punishment, “we know little about what it would actually take to bring perpetrators to relinquish violence and feel genuine remorse for their crimes.” Nevertheless, if we can find ways to “instill empathy or a feeling of common humanity in those who lack it,” we may create moral awakenings that truly safeguard our communities.

Prevention — Prevention, of course, means reducing potential exposure to traumatizing acts and events and help trauma victims in their healing. Educational programs, bystander training, and counseling and support for victims are among the preventive measures that can be implemented.

***

Truth and Repair is much richer and more fulsomely detailed on a deeply human level than I can provide in a relatively digestible summary. Indeed, this important book merits a close reading by anyone who is interested in how we, as a society, respond to psychological trauma. 

Brevity aside, I hope this gives you a good sense of Dr. Herman’s essential theme. In the next two blog posts, I will apply these findings to (1) the experience of targets of severe workplace bullying and potential responses by the legal system; and (2) the interdisciplinary field of therapeutic jurisprudence, which examines the therapeutic and anti-therapeutic properties of our laws, legal systems, and legal institutions.

Therapeutic jurisprudence workshop at the University of Puerto Rico

During the past weekend, I had the pleasure of participating in a workshop on therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ), featuring nine presentations on various aspects of law and psychology, held at the University of Puerto Rico (UPR) School of Law in San Juan. UPR happens to be the home institution of Prof. David Wexler, a co-founder of TJ, which is a multidisciplinary school of theory and practice that examines the therapeutic and anti-therapeutic properties of law, legal processes, and legal institutions. 

Here are the presenters and our topics:

• Attorney/Mediator Stella Maris Isabel Margetic (Buenos Aires, Argentina), “What Can We Learn from U.S. Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts to Inform Argentine Juvenile Criminal Justice?”
• Judge Ginger Lerner Wren (Broward County Mental Health Court, Fort Lauderdale, Florida), “The Intersection of TJ and Trauma-Informed Courts”
• Dr. Carrie Petrucci (Evaluation Researcher & Adjunct Faculty, Alliant International University, Irvine, California) (with Dr. Anna Kawalek, Leeds Law School, UK), “If We Measure It, They Will Come, Part Two: How to Measure ‘What-Works-Best-for-Whom-Under-What-Circumstances-and-Why’ in Therapeutic Jurisprudence Settings”
• Prof. David Yamada (Suffolk University Law School, Boston, Massachusetts), “Because Stories Matter: Overcoming Trauma Responses from Legal Clients and Witnesses”
• Prof. David Wexler (UPR School of Law, San Juan, Puerto Rico), “Anti-Therapeutic Practices of Law Reviews and Journals”
• J.D. Candidate Bárbara Becerra Marcano (UPR School of Law, San Juan, Puerto Rico), “Trial by Media: From a Therapeutic Jurisprudence Perspective”
• Prof. Shelley Kierstead (Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto, Canada), “Reducing Toxicity for Mental Health Professionals’ Participation in Parenting Matters”
• Attorney Sofia Lizzio (Athens, Greece), “Risk and Racial Bias: Workshop on Improving Minority and Low-Income Homeownership Experiences. A TJ Approach”
• Attorney Shannon Sweeney (Palmer, Puerto Rico), “Integration of Ecological Principles and Legal Writing: A Creative Approach to Holistic Problem Solving and Intentional Advocacy”

We also benefited from the very helpful assistance of UPR law students Katherine Alay and Veronica Rivera, who are serving as Prof. Wexler’s research assistants.

Before the pandemic, we held these small workshops periodically in North America and Puerto Rico, and they provided wonderful opportunities to share and discuss our work and to create and rekindle connections with members of the TJ community. This was our return to in-person programs, and it was a welcomed one. I’ve quipped that Prof. Shelley Kierstead and I, as co-organizers of this workshop, basically bullied David Wexler into allowing us to descend upon San Juan and his school!

Fortunately for all, it was an enormously stimulating and thought-provoking program, featuring participants from many different places. And, of course, we were able to steal some down time to enjoy a couple of meals together and to soak in the warm weather of San Juan.

l to r: Stella Maris Isabel Margetic, Carrie Petrucci, Shannon Sweeney, David Wexler, David Yamada, Shelley Kierstead, Sofia Lizzio, Bárbara Becerra, Veronica Rivera; not pictured: Ginger Lerner Wren, Katherine Alay

Ikigai: It’s not just for middle-aged searchers

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Ikigai, according to Wikipedia, “is a Japanese concept referring to something that gives a person a sense of purpose, a reason for living.” It is most commonly explained by invoking some version of the diagram reproduced above. The common center of all four circles is considered to be the state of ikigai.

Back in 2017, I wrote about ikigai in a post discussing personal satisfaction in one’s vocation or avocation. I’ve continued to see references to ikigai in various news features, often in the context of assessing one’s life at middle age.

Last year, I decided to add a session on ikigai to my law and psychology courses at Suffolk University Law School, which introduce students to the intersection of legal and psychological insights through the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence. “TJ,” as it is often tagged, is an interdisciplinary school of legal thought and practice that examines the therapeutic and anti-therapeutic properties of laws, legal systems, and legal institutions. 

Honestly, I wasn’t all that certain that a discussion around ikigai would resonate with a group of law students, most of whom are well short of their middle years. To my pleasant surprise, however, these discussions have been lively, thoughtful, and interactive. And, in a way that is capturing a recurring Generation Z theme, many students have folded into ikigai the importance of work-life balance. In their student evaluations, some have identified the ikigai discussion as being among their favorite parts of the course.

Sometimes an engaging, relatable concept captured in a simple diagram can yield interesting exchanges and valuable insights. I think that the ikigai diagram serves that role. My revised impression of ikigai is that it prompts important discussions and contemplations at many stages of one’s life. And, with some minor hacks and tweaking — such as taking into account vital uncompensated tasks such as parenting and caregiving, as well as meaningful avocations and hobbies — it has something to offer just about everyone.

***

Note: For an introduction to the field of therapeutic jurisprudence, see my 2021 law review article, “Teaching Therapeutic Jurisprudence,” published in the University of Baltimore Law Review; go here for a freely downloadable pdf.)

Briefing Memo on the Healthy Workplace Bill

After a bit of a quiet period during the heart of the pandemic, various state legislatures are showing renewed interest in the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill. Perhaps it’s the growing attention being accorded to toxic workplaces, or maybe it’s a sign that our elected officials are not as consumed with the challenges posed by the pandemic. (It’s likely both!)

I’ll be discussing more details during the months to come, but for now I wanted to share with you a briefing memo I put together about the Healthy Workplace Bill generally. It’s adapted from written testimonies that I’ve submitted to specific state legislatures. If you’d like to access a copy, please go here for a free download.

In addition, I made a pdf of a Dec. 2021 feature article in the ABA Journal, membership magazine of the American Bar Association, featuring my work on workplace bullying and related contributions to the field of therapeutic jurisprudence. Amanda Robert wrote the piece as part of the ABA Journal‘s “Members Who Inspire” series. Please go here for a free download of that article.

Watch and learn: Video recordings of 2022 programs

 

Hello dear readers, I’m linking below video recordings of several programs in which I participated during 2022. I hope you’ll find something of interest!

• “Bullying and Incivility in the Academic Workplace” (March 2022) (link here) — I gave a presentation about “Bullying and Incivility in the Academic Workplace” to the Northeastern University College of Science in Boston, as part of a series on “Disrupting Academic Bullying.” I first cover bullying, mobbing, and incivility generally, then I examine these behaviors in academic workplaces.
• “Creating Healthy Workplaces Through Legislation” (April 2022) (link here) — At a conference hosted by the U.S. Department of the Navy and Howard University, I was invited to participate in a panel discussion on “Fostering Professional Climates and Cultures Through Accountability.” The conference was the 2022 “National Discussion on Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment at America’s Colleges, Universities and Service Academies.” I joined Rear Admiral Rebecca Patterson, Keetah Salazar-Thompson, and Kelley Bonner on this panel. My brief handout for the conference is posted here.
• “The WBI Story: Drs. Ruth & Gary Namie” (July 2022) (link here) — I had the privilege of interviewing Drs. Ruth and Gary Namie, co-founders of the Workplace Bullying Institute and long-time colleagues and friends, about the history of their pioneering work to address workplace bullying. This program was part of Gary’s Workplace Bullying Podcast series.
• “The Hero’s Call: Workplace Bullying” (Sept. 2022) (link here) — Suffolk Law alumnus and trial attorney Marc Diller extended an invitation to appear on his law firm’s video web series, The Hero’s Call. Marc and his colleague, Dr. John Naranja, asked me about my work around workplace bullying, the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill, and associated activities in the field of therapeutic jurisprudence.
• “The Dignity of an Intellectual Life for All” (Oct. 2022) (link here) — I organized and hosted an interactive discussion featuring Zena Hitz (tutor, St. John’s College and author, Lost in Thought: The Hidden Pleasures of an Intellectual Life (2020)), followed by a responsive panel of distinguished educators, including Joseph Coulson, Hilda Demuth-Lutze, Linda Hartling, and Amy Thomas Elder. Hosted by Suffolk University Law School and co-sponsored by the Basic Program in Liberal Education for Adults at the University of Chicago, Harrison Middleton University, and the World Dignity University initiative of Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies.