{"id":2764,"date":"2021-01-06T09:09:12","date_gmt":"2021-01-06T14:09:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/?p=2764"},"modified":"2021-01-06T09:43:21","modified_gmt":"2021-01-06T14:43:21","slug":"the-u-s-code-and-implicitly-biased-language","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/2021\/01\/the-u-s-code-and-implicitly-biased-language\/","title":{"rendered":"The U.S. Code and Implicitly Biased Language"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cAnd when I meet Thomas Jefferson . . . I\u2019m \u2018a compel him to include women in the sequel!\u201d \u2013 Angelica Schuyler<\/em>[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

**********<\/p>\n

The nation is beginning to reckon with darker features of its history. The grappling process has run the gamut from racism to LGBTQ+ discrimination. Thankfully, these conversations have extended to include systemic sexism and gender discrimination. But one wave for which this tide has not crested is that of our nation\u2019s historic\u2014and continued\u2014use of the word \u201cHe\u201d to include both genders. \u00a0This came to a head recently at the Department of Veterans Affairs.<\/p>\n

The VA and its Motto<\/strong><\/p>\n

The VA\u2019s motto is taken from<\/a><\/span> Abraham Lincoln\u2019s incomparable Second Inaugural Address<\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWith malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation\u2019s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan<\/em>, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.\u201d (emphasis added).<\/p>\n

In 1959 when a plaque was hung on the Veterans Administration building with the italicized clause from Lincoln\u2019s speech, a motto was born.<\/p>\n

Over half a century later, the gender imbalance in Lincoln\u2019s otherwise remarkable oration came to the fore. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America<\/a><\/span> (\u201cIAVA\u201d), a non-profit whose mission<\/a> <\/span>is \u201cto serve and empower our post-9\/11 veterans community,\u201d commissioned a survey of veterans<\/a><\/span> to better understand gender dynamics within the veteran community.<\/p>\n

Only 27% agreed that the public treats women veterans with respect. Less than half felt VA employees treat women veterans with respect. Seventy percent did not feel VA adequately provides women veteran program managers, the staff whose primary role is to help welcome and guide women veterans through VA care. Overall, a mere 22% rated VA\u2019s support to women veterans as good or better.<\/p>\n

In light of these deeply entrenched views, IAVA sent a letter<\/a><\/span> to then-Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Dr. David Shulkin, asking to change the motto so as to effectuate change and ensure women veterans are respected as much as their men-counterparts. He did not<\/a><\/span>. And absent further action or discussion, the debate went dormant.<\/p>\n

Fast-forward three years: newly appointed VA Secretary Robert Wilkie announced in his Memorial Day message<\/a><\/span> that the VA \u201cwill memorialize \u2014 in bronze \u2014 Lincoln\u2019s charge to the nation in all of our VA cemeteries.\u201d This again prompted outcry: \u201cIf women veterans are invisible in the VA motto, where else are they invisible?,\u201d questioned<\/a> <\/span>Service Women\u2019s Action Network CEO Deshauna Barbers.<\/p>\n

To rectify the imbalance, the House Veterans\u2019 Affairs Committee passed H.R.3010, the\u00a0Honoring All Veterans Act<\/em>, which would bypass the Secretary\u2019s plenary motto authority to statutorily amend it to something more inclusive\u2014although neither the full House nor the Senate has voted on the measure.<\/p>\n

The VA\u2019s imbalanced language, however, gives way to a much more pervasive language structure in need of modernization and inclusion: state and federal statutes.<\/p>\n

Statutory Law Generally<\/strong><\/p>\n

A cursory examination of statutory law shows that the U.S. Code is rife with examples of implicit gender bias, particularly as it refers to high-ranking officials. For example, the authorizing statute for the Secretary of Defense<\/a> <\/span>holds: \u201cThe Secretary is the principal assistant to the President in all matters relating to the\u00a0Department of Defense. Subject to the direction of the President . . .\u00a0he<\/em><\/strong> has authority, direction, and control over the\u00a0Department of Defense.\u201d (emphasis added).[2]<\/a> The State Department similarly adopts this language; the provision titled Powers and Duties of the Secretary of State<\/em><\/a><\/span> reads, \u201cHe<\/em><\/strong> shall establish such regulations . . . and perform such other acts as he<\/em><\/strong> deems necessary for carrying out such provisions.\u201d (emphasis added).<\/p>\n

These Departments are no anomaly. \u00a0In various statutes, the Secretaries of Agriculture,[3]<\/a> Commerce,[4]<\/a> Health and Human Services,[5]<\/a> Housing and Urban Development,[6]<\/a> Interior,[7]<\/a> Labor,[8]<\/a> and Treasury[9]<\/a> as well as the Attorney General[10]<\/a> are all assumed to be men. Indeed, the Code similarly assumes a masculine Department head when discussing them as a whole.[11]<\/a> The President is not immune from this treatment, including in the Constitution itself;[12]<\/a> neither is the Vice President[13]<\/a> nor the Speaker of the House.[14]<\/a> And finally, military personnel are similarly gendered in abstraction.[15]<\/a>\u00a0 Ironically, one of the only positions that does not<\/em> assume a masculine gender in its referential pronouns is the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.<\/p>\n

It is the case that \u201c[s]tatutes commonly use masculine pronouns generically to refer to both sexes.\u201d[16]<\/a> Dating back to the Civil War, courts\u2014including the Supreme Court\u2014have followed this canon of interpretation.[17]<\/a> And finally, states have passed statutes that demand gendered statutes be so interpreted.[18]<\/a> Therefore, as a purely, narrowly technical matter, women\u2014in addition to those who do not conform to one of the two binary genders\u2014are \u2018represented\u2019 in these statutes, just like they are by implication within the context of the VA. \u201cThe\u00a0symbolic\u00a0effect of the\u00a0words, however, is precisely the problem.\u201d[19]<\/a> Terminology carries symbolic weight, and using a single masculine term belies the incredible progress women have made.<\/p>\n

Progress in Practice<\/strong><\/p>\n

In 1929, newly elected New York Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt appointed Frances Perkins, a career civil servant and industrial leader, to be the state\u2019s first industrial commissioner. In that role, Perkins earned plaudits as a leader and effective champion of working people across the Empire State, helping to pass labor health and safety laws.[20]<\/a> When Roosevelt was elected President, he asked Perkins to join him in Washington, D.C. and serve as the Secretary of Labor. Following some concerns about breaking this barrier\u2014\u201c\u2018Nothing like this has ever been done in the United States before,\u2019\u201d she told him, according to Kirstin Downey, author of a Perkins biography. \u201c\u2018You know that, don\u2019t you?\u2019\u201d[21]<\/a>\u2014Perkins was the lifeblood of the New Deal; she \u201csecured unemployment insurance and pensions for the elderly and financial assistance for the infirm in the Social Security Act of 1935; and established a minimum wage, maximum work hours and the eradication of child labor in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.\u201d[22]<\/a><\/p>\n

Perkins\u2019 early successful tenure notwithstanding, the dam finally broke in the 1970s when America saw the next batch of women Cabinet Secretaries. The Ford Administration included our second women Cabinet member, Carla Anderson Hills, as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. The Carter Administration, on the other hand, boasted four women secretaries, while Ronald Reagan\u2019s and George H.W. Bush\u2019s cabinets featured three women each. That number would grow to five, six, and eight for Presidents Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama, respectively.[23]<\/a> Indeed, only three Executive departments have never<\/em> been headed by a woman<\/a><\/span>: Defense, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs.[24]<\/a><\/p>\n

Cabinet secretaries are obviously not the only place that women have broken glass ceilings in government service: we\u2019ve had women Supreme Court justices, governors, senators, congresspersons, ambassadors, and incalculable important civil servants. Pursuit of the position of commander in chief has also seen progress. One year shy of the 1964 centenary anniversary of Lincoln\u2019s words, the first woman ran for a major party\u2019s nomination: Republican Senator Margaret Chase Smith<\/a><\/span>. A decade later, the other major party followed suit with Representative Shirley Chisolm<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

The progress women have made in achieving positions of power throughout the Executive and Legislative branches, while impressive, may fall short of women\u2019s remarkable\u2014if uncredited\u2014contributions to our nation\u2019s military. As NPR reports<\/a>,<\/span> \u201cWomen\u00a0fired cannons\u00a0in the Revolutionary War,\u00a0led troops\u00a0in the Civil War,\u00a0flew bombers\u00a0in World War II and the list goes on, right up to women fighting and\u00a0dying alongside Special Forces\u00a0in Syria.\u201d<\/p>\n

Not only can women now\u00a0serve\u00a0in combat, but [t]he first woman to\u00a0command a U.S. Navy vessel\u00a0did so in 1990. In 1991, women were\u00a0cleared to fly\u00a0fighter jets in combat; two years later, Congress\u00a0authorized women\u00a0to serve on combat ships at sea. 1998 marked the first female fighter pilots to fly combat missions\u00a0off of an aircraft carrier. The first women to command a U.S. Navy warship and U.S. Air Force fighter squadron were given their commands in\u00a01998\u00a0and\u00a02004, respectively. By 2010, women were cleared to\u00a0serve aboard submarines. According to the\u00a0Army, by September 2015 \u201c437 women earned awards for valor to include two Silver Stars, three Distinguished Flying Crosses, 31 Air Medals, and 16 Bronze Stars.\u201d[25]<\/a><\/p>\n

That progress made across the legal and political landscape is a double-edged sword, simultaneously empowering and disheartening. Of course, all should be heartened to see women demolish gender barriers improperly constructed in the first instance. Yet, this progress is counterintuitively demoralizing insofar as this progress is met with half-measures to recognize <\/em>said progress.<\/p>\n

So why did Sec. Wilkie refuse to make the adjustment? Tradition. In a February 2019 House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing<\/a><\/span>, Secretary Wilkie justified maintaining the motto: \u201cI\u2019m not arrogant enough to say I want to change Abraham Lincoln\u2019s words.\u201d He reiterated this idea in the same Memorial Day message<\/a> <\/span>proclaiming the VA\u2019s plan to enshrine Lincoln\u2019s words.<\/p>\n

To be sure, tradition is not without merit. The English author and philosopher Gilbert Keith Chesterton once wrote that \u201c[t]radition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.\u201d[26]<\/a> To wit, one need only shout \u201ctradition!\u201d to hear Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof<\/em> explain that tradition is \u201chow we\u2019ve kept our balance for many, many years [to] live in simple peace and harmony.\u201d[27]<\/a><\/p>\n

But the justification of tradition no longer holds water\u2014if it ever did. For a society that claims to espouse principles of equality\u2014e.g. <\/em>the inscription on the West Portico of the Supreme Court Building reads<\/a><\/span>, \u201cEqual Justice Under Law\u201d\u2014it is abhorrent to leave in place gendered language which serves only <\/em>to reinforce old stereotypes and entrench long-expired thinking. Setting aside our \u201clodestars\u201d of equality,[28]<\/a> the aforementioned laundry list of women\u2019s service to our nation alone is well worthy of equal recognition in our nation\u2019s Code as well as its mottos. That the Secretary cries crocodile tears for tradition is insulting: \u201cSometimes tradition and habit are just that, comfortable excuses to leave things be, even when they are unjust and unworthy.\u201d[29]<\/a> Said more plainly: \u201cImmorality sanctified by tradition is still immorality.\u201d[30]<\/a><\/p>\n

Moreover, that the Secretary cloaks this inequity in deference to Lincoln bespeaks his failure to grasp the growth our nation has undergone in the over 150 years since the Address. To be sure, none advocating a modification of the VA\u2019s motto revel<\/em> in rewriting Lincoln\u2019s words. None suggests one of our most treasured commanders in chief was not a patriot nor well-intentioned. Instead, they would say that his words simply reflected \u201cthe best wisdom of [his] time, but it\u2019s just plain wrong by any modern standard<\/em>.\u201d[31]<\/a><\/p>\n

Thankfully, our nation\u2019s laws and customs alike have begun to unravel and uproot sexism and classism. And \u201c[o]nce loosed, the idea of Equality is not easily cabined.\u201d[32]<\/a> We cannot allow it to be barred from our nation\u2019s symbols, laws, and creeds.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Note from the Author: Russell Spivak, J.D., Harvard Law School, 2017; B.S., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2013. <\/strong>I dedicate this article to the many women in my life who made me the person I am today.\u00a0 As well, my deepest gratitude goes out to the excellent editors of the Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, without whom this article would not be possible.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Lin-Manuel Miranda, Hamilton: An American Musical (2015).<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> See also<\/em> 22 U.S.C. \u00a7 2651a (the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security \u201cmay attend and participate in meetings of the\u00a0National Security Council\u00a0in his<\/em><\/strong> role as Senior Advisor to the President and the Secretary of State on Arms Control and Nonproliferation Matters.\u201d (emphasis added)).<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, 16 U.S.C. \u00a7 460gg-6 (\u201cas he deems necessary\u201d).<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, 13 U.S.C. \u00a7 4 (\u201cThe\u00a0Secretary\u00a0shall perform the functions and duties imposed upon\u00a0him\u00a0by this title, may issue such rules and regulations as\u00a0he\u00a0deems necessary\u201d).<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, 21 U.S.C. \u00a7 379e (\u201cIf . . . the\u00a0Secretary\u00a0finds that the data before\u00a0him\u201d).<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, 12 U.S.C. \u00a7 1748b (\u201cThe\u00a0Secretary\u00a0may, in\u00a0his\u00a0discretion\u201d).<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, 16 U.S.C. \u00a7 167a (\u201cas\u00a0he\u00a0deems necessary\u201d).<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, 29 U.S.C. \u00a7 482 (\u201cif\u00a0he\u00a0finds\u201d).<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 291j-6 (\u201cto enable him to discharge his responsibilities\u201d).<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 510 (\u201cThe\u00a0Attorney\u00a0General\u00a0may from time to time make such provisions as\u00a0he\u00a0considers appropriate\u201d).<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 512 (\u201cThe head of an executive department may require the opinion of the\u00a0Attorney\u00a0General\u00a0on questions of law arising in the administration of\u00a0his\u00a0department.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> See<\/em> U.S. Const. art. II, \u00a7 1, cl. 7 (\u201cThe\u00a0President\u00a0shall, at stated Times, receive for\u00a0his<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0<\/em>Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which\u00a0he<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0<\/em>shall have been elected, and\u00a0he<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0<\/em>shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, 3 U.S.C. \u00a7 111 (\u201cThere shall be paid to the\u00a0Vice\u00a0President\u00a0in equal monthly installments an expense allowance of $20,000 per annum to assist in defraying expenses relating to or resulting from the discharge of\u00a0his\u00a0official duties, for which no accounting, other than for income tax purposes, shall be made by\u00a0him.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, 3 U.S.C. \u00a7 19 (\u201cIf . . . there is neither a President nor\u00a0Vice\u00a0President\u00a0to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon\u00a0his\u00a0resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, 10 U.S.C. \u00a7 938 (\u201cAny member of the armed forces who believes himself wronged by\u00a0his\u00a0commanding\u00a0officer\u201d).<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> 2A Norman Singer & Shambie Singer, Sutherland statutory construction \u00a7 47:32 (7th ed.) (Gender); see also <\/em>3B Norman Singer & Shambie Singer, Sutherland statutory construction \u00a7 74:1 (8th ed.) (Poverty Relief) (\u201cA masculine\u00a0gender\u00a0reference usually includes females, and a feminine gender reference usually excludes males, and a statute that contains both masculine and feminine\u00a0gender\u00a0references ordinarily uses each in its familiar, common sense\u201d); 1A Norman Singer & Shambie Singer, Sutherland statutory construction \u00a7 21:2 (7th ed.) (Length of Sections) (\u201cExceptions excepted, let the masculine singular comprehend both\u00a0genders\u00a0and numbers.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> See<\/em> Silver v. Ladd, 74 U.S. 219, 226 (1868).<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, Iowa Code Ann. \u00a7 4.1 (\u201cWords of one gender include the other genders.\u201d); Miss. Code Ann. \u00a7 43-21-105(w)\u00a0(Rev. 2015) (\u201cthe masculine [includes] the feminine when consistent with the intent of this chapter.\u201d); Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-10-224 (\u201cThroughout this chapter, the pronoun \u2018he\u2019 is deemed to include the masculine gender, the feminine gender, and, in the case of employers who are not persons, the neuter gender.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung AG, 578 F.3d 1052, 1061 (9th Cir. 2009),\u00a0reh’g granted, opinion withdrawn,<\/em>\u00a0629 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2010),\u00a0on reh\u2019g en banc<\/em>,\u00a0670 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2012).<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> Alana Samuels, Frances Perkins: 100 Women of the Year<\/em>, Time (Mar. 5, 2020), https:\/\/time.com\/5792783\/frances-perkins-100-women-of-the-year\/.<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[22]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[23]<\/a> This list considers only cabinet secretaries.\u00a0 There are other members of the Cabinet whose membership is not accounted for in this brief article, including but not limited to former U.S. Trade Representatives Charlene Barshefsky (under President Clinton) and Carla Anderson Hills (under President H.W. Bush).<\/p>\n

[24]<\/a> Of course, President-Elect Joe Biden\u2019s nomination of Janet Yellen to serve as Treasury Secretary would address one third of this national shortcoming.\u00a0 See<\/em> Janet Yellen<\/em>, Biden-Harris Transition, https:\/\/buildbackbetter.gov\/nominees-and-appointees\/janet-yellen\/<\/a> (last accessed Dec. 29, 2020).<\/p>\n

[25]<\/a> Russell Spivak & Adam Aliano, Should Women Register for Selective Service? The Legacy of Rostker v. Goldberg<\/em>, Lawfare Blog (Dec. 23, 2016), https:\/\/www.lawfareblog.com\/should-women-register-selective-service-legacy-rostker-v-goldberg (embedded links disabled).<\/p>\n

[26]<\/a> Gilbert Keith Chesterton, Orthodoxy, ch.4 (1908).<\/p>\n

[27]<\/a> Fiddler on the Roof (United Artists 1971) (\u201cwithout our traditions, our lives would be as shaky as \u2026 as \u2026 a fiddler on the roof!\u201d)<\/p>\n

[28]<\/a> Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 623 (1996) (Kennedy, J.) (citing Plessy v. Ferguson,<\/em>\u00a0163 U.S. 537, 559 (1896) (Harlan, J. dissenting) (\u201cthe Constitution \u2018neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens\u2019\u201d).<\/p>\n

[29]<\/a> Matthew Scully,\u00a0Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy, 314 (2002).<\/p>\n

[30]<\/a> Bernard Rollin, Animal Rights and Human Morality 169 (2006).<\/p>\n

[31]<\/a> The West Wing, Take This Sabbath Day<\/em> (NBC television broadcast Feb. 9, 2000).<\/p>\n

[32]<\/a> Archibald Cox, The Supreme Court, 1965 Term\u2014Foreword: Constitutional Adjudication and the Promotion of Human Rights<\/em>, 90 Harv. L. Rev. 91, 91 (1966).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cAnd when I meet Thomas Jefferson . . . I\u2019m \u2018a compel him to include women in the sequel!\u201d \u2013 Angelica Schuyler[1] ********** The nation is beginning to reckon with darker features of its history. The grappling process has run the gamut from racism to LGBTQ+ discrimination. Thankfully, these conversations have extended to include systemic […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":19030,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2764","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-online-journal"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZQij-IA","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2764","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/19030"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2764"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2764\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2764"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2764"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2764"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}