Rebecca Gill, Ph.D.
rebecca.gill@unlv.edu
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Rebecca Gill is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Nevada Las Vegas. Dr. Gill’s recent research focuses on gender, politics, and legal institutions. She is the recipient of a multi-year National Science Foundation grant to study gender and race bias in performance evaluations of state judges. Dr. Gill’s research interests also include state law, state judicial selection, Nevada politics, comparative courts. In addition to this, she is heavily involved in issues of gender and intersectional equity in academia. She has spoken out about her #metooPhD moment, particularly as it relates to the intersection of harassment and the imposter experience. In recognition of these efforts, she was a co-awardee (with Valerie Sulfaro) of the 2018 Jane Mansbridge Award. Dr. Gill is currently working on a number of projects to combat implicit and institutional bias against women in political science and the STEM disciplines. Dr. Gill is the co-author of Judicialization of Politics: The Interplay of Institutional Structure, Legal Doctrine, and Politics on the High Court of Australia (Carolina Academic Press, 2012). Her work has appeared in prestigious scholarly outlets including the Georgetown Law Journal; Law & Society Review; State Politics & Policy Quarterly; Politics, Groups, and Identities; and the Ohio State Law Journal. Her work has been featured in a number of popular outlets, like the Washington Post, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and the Wall Street Journal Law Blog.
Research Interests
Judicial Politics
Gender and Politics
State and Local Politics
Elections, Election Administration, and Voting Behavior
Australia And Pacific Island Politics
Intersectionality
Women In Academia
Sexual Harassment: Politics
Women In Politics
Gender And Judging
Masculinity
Countries of Interest
United States
Australia
Although many people believe that women are disadvantaged by the electoral process, recent research shows women generally do at least as well as men when they run for office. We investigate the gender dynamics of state supreme court elections. We find evidence that women do enjoy an electoral advantage when they run for judicial office. However, unlike previous work, we find that this advantage is highly contingent on the electoral context. Using an original dataset of competitive judicial elections from 1998 to 2014, we find that women only have a significant vote share advantage when they run as a challenger against a sitting incumbent. The advantage does not apply to women as incumbents or in open seat elections. These findings raise important questions about the interplay of institutional barriers and election aversion for the advancement of women in electoral judicial politics.
The goal of this article is to provide a practical guidance for anyone who has experienced sexual harassment or assault in academia and is considering the possibility of pursuing disciplinary measures by means of filing a Title IX complaint. Sexual harassment is an abuse of power by those who possess it against those who do not; the Title IX process does not remedy this power imbalance. And, academic institutions often have interests that compete with the welfare of their students, and which may enable harassers. We address some of the risks that the Title IX process may create for those who are already vulnerable, and suggest that some of the responsibility for enacting reforms should be taken up by professional associations. Because they often control professional journals and conferences, they could be effective advocates for a more fair and equitable educational environment if they choose to take a more active role in discouraging misconduct in their disciplines.
What constrains the representation of women on the European Court of Justice (ECJ)? In this paper, we investigate how gender-based double standards can diminish the likelihood that the member state will select a female candidate. We find that the appointment of women to the ECJ depends upon the relationship between the appointee's policymaking backgrounds and the degree to which legal traditions in the member state provide policymaking experience to ordinary judges. The fact that this configuration has a disparate impact by candidate gender reflects the fact that female candidates are expected to demonstrate partisan neutrality or policymaking expertise, while male candidates are assumed to have these traits. Our findings demonstrate the importance of informal job requirements and institutional constraints on the ability of governments to achieve their representation goals.
Evidence of gendered decision making by judges has been mixed at best. We argue that this is a result of a narrow focus on how female judges differ from male judges. This treats women as the “other,” and the primary object of study is often to determine why female judicial behavior differs from the “norm” of male behavior. We depart from this tradition by using male-centered theories to derive and test hypotheses about maleness and the interactive effect of judge gender and litigant gender in appellate decision making. Drawing on findings from an original dataset of immigration appeals, we find evidence that gender biases manifest themselves in patterns of appellate decision making among all-male panels. Despite our predictions, female judges may also demonstrate evidence of these biases.
Nonprecedent decisions are the norm in federal appellate courts and are seen by judges as a practical necessity given the size of their dockets. Yet this system has always been plagued by doubts. If only some decisions are designated to be precedents, questions arise about whether courts might be acting arbitrarily in other cases. Such doubts have been overcome in part because nominally unpublished decisions are available through standard legal research databases. This creates the appearance of transparency, mitigating concerns that courts may be acting arbitrarily. But what if this appearance is an illusion? This Article reports empirical data drawn from a study of immigration appeals showing that many—and in a few circuits, most—decisions by the federal courts of appeals are in fact unavailable and essentially invisible to the public. This Article reviews the reasons why nonpublication is a practical, constitutional, and philosophical challenge for judges. It argues that the existence of widespread invisible adjudication calls for a rethinking of the way courts operate, the way practitioners advise clients, and the way scholars study the legal system.
Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) is generally seen as an important part of the merit system, which often suffers from a lack of relevant voter information. Utah’s JPE system has undergone significant change in recent years. Using data from the two most recent JPE surveys, we provide a preliminary look at the operation of this new system. Our results suggest that the survey component has difficulty distinguishing among the judges on the basis of relevant criteria. The question prompts intended to measure performance on different ABA categories are also indistinguishable. We find evidence that, on some measures, female judges do disproportionately worse than male judges. We suggest that the free response comments and the new Court Observation Program results may improve the ability of the commission to make meaningful distinctions among the judges on the basis of appropriate criteria.
The judicial performance evaluation (JPE) commission is the key player in the JPE process. The commission generally has very few binding rules to follow and thus has a great deal of discretion in how to proceed. This preliminary investigation suggests the JPE commissions may be relying heavily on the attorney surveys to identify recipients of negative recommendations.
Judicial performance evaluations (JPEs) are a critical part of selecting judges, especially in states using merit-based selection systems. This article shows empirical evidence that gender and race bias still exist in attorney surveys conducted in accordance with the ABA's Guidelines. This systematic bias is related to a more general problem with the design and implementation of JPE surveys, which results in predictable problems with the reliability and validity of the information obtained through these survey instruments. This analysis raises questions about the validity and reliability of the JPE. This is a particularly poor outcome, as it means that we are subjecting many judges to state-sponsored evaluations that are systematically biased against women and minorities.
A noncitizen facing deportation from the United States must obtain a stay of removal to avoid being deported while his federal appeal is pending. In its 2009 decision in Nken v. Holder, the Supreme Court attempted to clarify the doctrinal standard for obtaining such a stay However, key parts of the decision now stand on shaky ground because subsequent litigation has revealed that the Solicitor General’s Office misled the Court to believe that procedures were in place to bring wrongfully deported individuals back to the United States if they ultimately won their appeals. In addition, the federal circuit courts of appeal are split on how to apply the Nken standard. The government’s rush to deport first and resolve appeals later stems from a belief that many noncitizens abuse the appeals process to remain in the United States for a longer period of time. This fear assumes that filing an appeal actually buys a significant amount of time. The opening line of Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion in Nken recognized the critical role of time, but could only vaguely note: “It takes time to decide a case on appeal. Sometimes a little; sometimes a lot.” Unpacking fears of abuse therefore requires exploring how long the appellate process actually takes. In a concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy lamented the lack of available empirical data about how the federal courts of appeals actually handle stays of removal, recognizing that such data would help the Court analyze whether the standard for granting stays is fair and effective. This Article presents new empirical data that shows that common assumptions about the duration of immigration appeals are actually false. The government’s arguments to the Supreme Court about the danger that stays of removal pose were founded on these misperceptions. This new data should affect how liberally appellate courts grant stays of removal and assist the Supreme Court in resolving the circuit split over the application of the Nken standard.
he government may deport an immigrant appealing a deportation order in federal court even before the court rules on the case, unless the court issues a stay of removal. In its 2009 decision in Nken v. Holder, the Supreme Court clarified that the legal standard for stays of removal is the same test courts use for preliminary injunctions. Yet Justice Kennedy expressed frustration that the Court had little data to inform its decision. The Court will likely need to revisit this issue, as doubts cloud the meaning of Nken’s main holdings, in part because the government misled the Court. This Article responds to Justice Kennedy’s request for data and sheds light on the doctrinal controversies surrounding stays by presenting groundbreaking empirical analysis of 1646 cases in all the circuits that hear immigration appeals. It offers a singular window into an arena of adjudication where decisions are rarely articulated in writing. Among our most important findings, the circuit courts denied stays of removal in about half of the appeals that were ultimately granted, an alarming type of error that could result in people being errantly deported to countries where they risk persecution or torture. Our results also suggest that legal doctrine makes an important difference in how accurately courts identify which cases merit a stay, but that no magic bullet exists to avoid errors. In order to adopt an effective approach to stays of removal, courts must confront an important value judgment about whether to err on the side of preventing wrongful removal or on the side of avoiding delayed deportation.
The scholarly debate about how to select state judges has been ongoing for decades; the public debate on the issue spans more than a century. Proponents on each side seem confident that their preferred method of judicial selection is the best. Reformers argued that, “judicial elections deserve the limelight in the variety show of threats to judicial independence.” Defenders of judicial elections have countered that judicial reformers are “waging war on democratic processes and the rights of citizens to maintain control over government.” The empirical evidence to date, however, has largely resulted in a draw. The more we learn about the actual performance of these systems, the more difficult it becomes to declare one or the other system the winner. The purpose of this article is not to settle this debate, but neither will I shy away from it. Instead, I discuss what we currently know about judicial selection in the American states and what it means for the future.
Because voters rely on judicial performance evaluations when casting their ballots, policymakers should work diligently to compile valid, reliable, and unbiased information about our sitting judges. Although some claim that judicial performance evaluations are fair, the systematic research needed to establish such a proposition has not been done. By the use of attorney judicial performance survey data from Clark County, Nevada, this analysis shows that objective measures of judicial performance cannot explain away differences in scores based on race and sex. Minority judges and female judges score consistently and significantly lower than do their white and male counterparts, all other things being equal. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that judicial performance evaluation surveys may carry with them unexamined and unconscious gender/race biases. Future research must compare judicial performance evaluation structure, content, and execution across states in order to identify those evaluation mechanisms least susceptible to unconscious gender and race bias.
This book examines the judicialization of politics in the High Court of Australia. The authors argue it is the interplay of institutional structures, a growing concern for individual rights, and the willingness of the justices to engage in purposive policymaking that lead the court to engage in judicial politics. The High Court of Australia underwent a significant structural change in its jurisdiction at about the same time that it was also experiencing a shift away from strict legalism. Segments of the Australian population began to lose faith in the ability of Parliament to right societal wrongs and protect the rights of individuals. The result was a period of time in which the decision-making of the High Court was under scrutiny because the Court seemed to be engaging in policymaking. The findings suggest that justices can be constrained by institutional structures and the acceptance of restrictive legal doctrines. Changes in those conditions are necessary for judicialization of politics to occur in a court. The book will be of interest to a wide range of scholars who are interested in the phenomenon of the judicialization of politics. These scholars include law school professors, political scientists, and other academics studying judicial politics and the role of constitutional structures and legal doctrine in decision-making. The book is ideal for use in a graduate seminar on judicial politics and/or comparative legal systems. It provides an excellent example of a comparative research design and analyses that would be a valuable instructional tool in a graduate class.
The 2020 United States presidential race is arguably already over except for about 12 states and 20 counties. If recent presidential election trends are any indication of what will happen in 2020, Democrats in Texas and Republicans in New York might as well stay home on election day because their votes will matter little in the presidential race. The same might be said for voters in most states and counties in the United States. Conversely, for those in Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Iowa, and a handful of other states, every vote matters. These states will be battered with a barrage of presidential candidate visits, commercials, political spending, and countless stories in the media. This book analyzes why the presidential race has been effectively reduced to about a dozen states and 20 counties. Contributors to this volume make substantial updates and additions in light of the 2016 and in anticipation of the 2020 presidential elections, including 6 new chapters exploring why some states are swingers in presidential elections, capable of being won by either of the major candidates. The volume also adds a chapter examining important swing counties throughout the country. Presidential Swing States describes what makes these few states and counties unique and why the presidency is decided by who wins them. With cases studies written by prominent political scientists who are experts on these swing states, Presidential Swing States also explains why some states have been swingers but no longer are, why some are swinging, and which states may become the ones that decide the presidency
Leading authorities present the latest cutting edge research on state judicial elections. Starting with recent transformations in the electoral landscape, including those brought about by U.S. Supreme Court rulings, this volume provides penetrating analyses of partisan, nonpartisan, and retention elections to state supreme courts, intermediate appellate courts, and trial courts. Topics include citizen participation, electoral competition, fundraising and spending, judicial performance evaluations, reform efforts,attack campaigns, and other organized efforts to oust judges. This volume also evaluates the impact of judicial elections on numerous aspects of American politics, including citizens’ perceptions of judicial legitimacy, diversity on the bench, and the consequences of who wins on subsequent court decisions. Many of the chapters offer predictions about how judicial elections might look in the future. Overall, this collection provides a sharp evidence-based portrait of how modern judicial elections actually work in practice and their consequences for state judiciaries and the American people.
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Religion and Politics in the U.S. provides a broad, inclusive, and rich range of chapters, in the study of religion and politics. Arranged in their historical context, chapters address themes of history, law, social and religious movements, policy and political theory. Broadens the parameters of this timely subject, and includes the latest work in the field Draws together newly-commissioned essays by distinguished authors that are cogent for scholars, while also being in a style that is accessible to students. Provides a balanced and inclusive approach to religion and politics in the U.S. Engages diverse perspectives from various discourses about religion and politics across the political and disciplinary spectra, while placing them in their larger historical context
The 2016 presidential race is arguably already over in 40 states and the District of Columbia. If recent presidential election trends are any indication of what will happen in 2016, Democrats in Texas and Republicans in New York might as well stay home on election day because their votes will matter little in the presidential race. The same might be said for the voters in 38 other states too. Conversely, for those in Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Iowa, and a handful of other states, their votes matter. These states will be battered with a barrage of presidential candidate visits, commercials, political spending, and countless stories about them by the media. Understanding why the presidential race has been effectively reduced to only ten states is the subject of Presidential Swing States: Why Only Ten Matter. Stacey Hunter Hecht and David Schultz offer a first of its kind examination of why some states are swingers in presidential elections, capable of being won by either of the major candidates. Presidential Swing States describes what makes these few states unique and why the presidency is decided by who wins them. With cases studies written by prominent political scientists who are experts on these swing states, Presidential Swing States also explains why some states have been swingers but no longer are, why some are swinging, and what states beyond 2016 may be the future ones that decide the presidency.
“NV Assemblyman Mike Sprinkle Resigns Amid Sexual Harassment Claims.” Amy Abdelsayed and Brian Callahan, KTNV Channel 13 Las Vegas. March 14, 2019.
“Women, Leadership, and Social Justice.” Invited speaker and town hall event host. Vegas PBS. March 22, 2019.
"'I was Confused and Distressed': Former MSU Professor's Accusers Speak Out." Megan Hiler, WILX News. January 14, 2019.
Valley leaders highlight progress on International Women's Day
"A Leading Political Scientist Used an Academic Journal to Deny Allegations of Sexual Harassment. Now He's Resigned As Its Editor." Peter Aldhous, Buzzfeed News. April 20, 2018.
Women Played 'Pivotal' Role in Shifting House to Democrats
Rebecca Gill analyzes the GOP Nevada caucus.
Discussed current issues before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Discussed gender bias in evaluations of public officials.
Chris Giunchigliani won’t be our next governor, but we’re likely to see more women take office in the next year. That’s because women are running for every state assembly seat that’s open, and more than half of the state senate seats that are available. Depending on how the elections go in November, Nevada could become the first state in history to have a majority-female legislature. Rebecca Gill, the director of the Women's Research Institute of Nevada, says the more women are entering politics for several different reasons, including the results of the 2016 presidential election and the efforts by groups around the country to recruit female candidates. For Sondra Cosgrove with the League of Women Voters of Southern Nevada, it is not just about getting women elected. It is about making sure those women have a say in how the elected body is run. “Just getting women elected to the Legislature would be a milestone, but then I want to see that they’re given the opportunity to set the agenda, to be in leadership positions and that they’re not going to have to worry about harassment,” she said. Women in elected office tend to introduce more bills addressing women's issues, children and social welfare, but a New York Times report found that only about 1 percent of those bills introduced by women in Congress have actually passed.
When UNLV political science professor Rebecca Gill was a graduate student at Michigan State in 2003, she went through something that is today causing quite a stir in academia. Those 15 years ago, Gill says she was asked by the editor of a major academic journal of political science to have an affair with him. She said she was stunned. ”I was shocked. I didn’t really see it coming,” she said, “I said, something like ‘you can’t expect me to answer that.” The editor of that journal was William G. Jacoby, a political science professor who was, at the time, on his way to a professorship at Michigan State University. Gill held onto that story until a conference in January that dealt with mentoring graduate students. Though she didn't use Jacoby's name, it was clear to some listening who she meant. Since then, at least one other woman has made similar allegations. And earlier this week, Jacoby wrote in the editorial space of the American Journal of Political Science that his accusers weren't telling the truth. He also said he would step down as editor in December. Gill says she was "gobsmacked" by Jacoby's editorial. “What surprised me most was the forum that he used," she said, "He put this on the main page of one of the best known academic journals in my discipline. This has a huge reach and it is a platform that carries with it a lot of official power.” That’s not the end of it, though. At least one investigation is ongoing. And several dozen professors have signed a letter asking that Jacoby is fired. For Gill, Jacoby's dismissal is not her primary goal. “My intention when I first talking about this story was really to help us as an academic discipline get better at mentoring people and get better at creating welcoming climates for all sorts of different kinds of people.”
The district attorney for Carson City recently dropped his city's opposition to same-sex marriage -- because of a ruling in a California case completely unrelated to Nevada. Courts all over the country have been ruling in favor of allowing same-sex marriage. So will the dominoes continue to fall in such a way that topples Nevada ban on same-sex marriage? And what is the danger of deciding public policy in that way?
Hispanics comprise about 25 percent of Southern Nevada's population, or about 450,000 people. In fact, a recent report from The Pew Hispanic Center finds that one of every five childen in the U.S. is Hispanic. Juxtapose that with recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action and the voting rights act, and definitions of what constitutes a "minority" in this country and this region are rapidly changing. NPR's Juan Williams, San Diego Union-Tribune columnist Ruben Navrette, Senior Legal Fellow & Deputy Director, Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, Robert Alt, and Professor of Political Science at UNLV, Rebecca Wood, help us understand what this could mean for political, social and economic life in Southern Nevada and the United States.
The Golden State's high court ruled earlier this week that California's voter-approved measure outlawing same-sex marriage allows for 18,000 same-sex marriages to remain legal. Will Nevada courts honor those marriages? We talk with UNLV Political Science Prof. Rebecca Wood; and Brad Sears, executive director of the Williams Institute on Same Sex Law and Policy.
Crosby, Rachel. “RJ launches survey that asks Clark County lawyers to rate judges.” Las Vegas Review-Journal. June 26, 2019.
Lochhead, Colton and Bill Dentzer. "Nevada's First Female Majority Legislature Got a Lot Done." Las Vegas Review-Journal. June 23, 2019.
Everett, Cath. “Tech Investors and the ‘Weinstein Clause’ – Avoiding Tomorrow’s #MeToo Moments.” Diginomica. April 12, 2019.
“He Denied Sexual Harassment Allegations In An Academic Journal. Now Two Universities Have Found Against Him.” Peter Aldhous, Buzzfeed. January 18, 2019.
“Report: UM, MSU Find Professor Sexually Harassed Graduate Students.” Martin Slagter, Mlive. January 14, 2019.
“MSU Political Scientist Tried to Trade Academic Guidance for Sex, University Finds.” RJ Wolcott, Lansing State Journal. January 14, 2019.
“2 Universities Conclude That a Prominent Political Scientist Violated Sexual-Harassment Policies.” Nell Gluckman. The Chronicle of Higher Education. January 9, 2019.
The Supreme Court’s legitimacy crisis is here, Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation will likely turn many Americans against the Court itself.
Reporting sex abuse: Damned if you do or don’t.
Candidates for top GA posts pledge sexual harassment reform
State’s weak response to sexual harassment makes reporting risky. Some perceive state government as a good old boys club, protecting its own
Las Vegas Strip companies work toward gender pay equity
Survey to find which Nevada companies have best gender-equality policies
A Political Scientist Says #MeToo. A professor shares her experience of harassment and sees support as well as backlash, enabled in part by a controversial anonymous online forum for political scientists.
CES programming highlights national, local issues with gender parity
Kim Sinatra stepping down from role at Wynn Resorts
How a UNLV Professor's #MeToo moment sparked her involvement in harassment prevention.
An Editor Uses His Journal’s Website to Deny Sexual-Misconduct Claims. Scholars Revolt.
Editorial Malpractice? The editor of a prestigious political science journal uses its website to deny harassment allegations against him, prompting the Midwest Political Science Association to take action critics say it should have taken months ago.
“Justice of the Peace Faces Discipline for Seeking Police Help.” Dana Gentry, Nevada Current. December 13, 2018.
#MeToo on ice in Nevada casinos
Election Takeaways: Washoe Blues, Rural-Urban Divide Deepens.
Political Scientist Empowers Others with her #MeToo Moment.
MSU professor investigated for sexual misconduct, resigns from journal
First Amendment Allows Religious Speech on Campus, No Matter How Uncomfortable.
The Justice Issue Lurking Behind the Bench
A stay on deportations
In Federal Appeals Courts, Chivalry Is Not Dead
Why Nevada Couldn’t Afford a Religious Freedom Act: Nevada quietly (and wisely) says no to a controversial religious freedom act
‘Judging the Judges’ tilts against women
Henderson Municipal Court Judge Department 1 election set for June 4
A matter of fairness
Question 1
Many lawyers seek appointment system
Survey raises questions about women on the bench
Court wants to let more people join in evaluating judges
How should we evaluate our judges for the voters at election time?
“Newsmakers 2018: Community Impact.” Tony Allen, UNLV News Center. December 28, 2018.
Cookie Policy
About this Cookie Policy
This Cookie Policy is provided as an addition to this site's Privacy Notice and exists to explain what cookies are and how they are used on this site. Cookies are tiny text files that are stored within your web broswer or hard drive when you visit a website or web applicaiton. These cookies allow servers to deliver content tailored to individual users or understand user behavior.
Types of Cookies we use
This site employs two first-party cookies (served from us and by us that are essential for the site to operate) and two third-party cookies that deliver external services.
First-Party Cookies
We use a server-generated session cookie to remember you when you are logged in to the site. This is essential to making sure that your profile details are those that are updated when you log in to make changes. This also lets us know who is logging into the site and when.
This site also uses a cookie that is created by your browser to remember when you agree to the cookie notice popup. This cookie stores nothing but the word "true" if you have agreed to the terms and is deleted when you close your browser. This cookie's only function is to prevent the cookie notice from popping up every time you refresh the site's homepage.
Third-Party Cookies
This site uses Google Analytics to understand usage trends and server performance. We do not store variables which are personally-identifiable in Google Analytics like browser ids or IP addresses. Google's privacy policy can be found here. If you would prefer have your browser stop supplying information to Google Analytics, Google provides a browser extension to allow you to do so.
This site also uses cookies supplied by Twitter when the Twitter sidebar script is loaded on the homepage. Their cookie policy is available here. Third-party cookies from Twitter are only loaded on this site's homepage and only when you agree to the terms or click the Twitter logo in the navigation bar.
How to Disable Cookies Altogether
Information on how to disable cookies in your browser can be found here. Please keep in mind that disabling cookies will prevent the essential functions of most interactive websites and web applications, this site included.
Privacy Notice
This privacy notice discloses the privacy practices for (womenalsoknowstuff.com). This privacy notice applies solely to information collected by this website. It will notify you of the following:
Information Collection, Use, and Sharing
We are the sole owners of the information collected on this site. We only have access to/collect information that you voluntarily give us via completing your profile or from direct contact from you. We will not sell or rent this information to anyone. However, as you are voluntarily providing your information to a publicly searchable database, anyone using the site will be able to access your information in the directory. We will use your information to respond to you, regarding the reason you contacted us. We will not share your information with any third party outside of our organization. However, anything you enter into your directory profile is publicly searchable and available to anyone using the site. Unless you ask us not to, we may contact you via email in the future to tell you about changes to this privacy policy. Your Access to and Control Over Information You may opt out of any future contacts from us at any time. You can do the following at any time by logging into your account/profile or by contacting us via email.
Security
We take precautions to protect your information. When you submit information via the website, your information is protected both online and offline. Wherever we collect information (provided by you), such as professional information or account passwords, that information is encrypted and transmitted to us in a secure way. You can verify this by looking for a lock icon in the address bar and looking for "https" at the beginning of the address of the Web page. While we use encryption to protect sensitive information transmitted online, we also protect your information offline. We do not have access to your account password, as this information is encrypted and not available to any other site users or administrators. If you forget your password, you may request a password reset. If you feel that we are not abiding by this privacy policy, you should contact us immediately.
Contact Us
If you have any questions about this Privacy Notice, or need to contact us, we can be reached at .
Terms and Conditions
Last updated: August 04, 2019
Please read these Terms and Conditions ("Terms", "Terms and Conditions") carefully before using the http://womenalsoknowstuff.com website (the "Service") operated by Women Also Know Stuff ("us", "we", or "our"). Your access to and use of the Service is conditioned upon your acceptance of and compliance with these Terms. These Terms apply to all visitors, users and others who wish to access or use the Service. By accessing or using the Service you agree to be bound by these Terms. If you disagree with any part of the terms then you do not have permission to access the Service.
Content
Our Service allows you to post, link, store, share and otherwise make available certain information, text, graphics, videos, or other material ("Content"). You are responsible for the Content that you post on or through the Service, including its legality, reliability, and appropriateness. By posting Content on or through the Service, You represent and warrant that: (i) the Content is yours (you own it) and/or you have the right to use it and the right to grant us the rights and license as provided in these Terms, and (ii) that the posting of your Content on or through the Service does not violate the privacy rights, publicity rights, copyrights, contract rights or any other rights of any person or entity. We reserve the right to terminate the account of anyone found to be infringing on a copyright. You retain any and all of your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Service and you are responsible for protecting those rights. We take no responsibility and assume no liability for Content you or any third party posts on or through the Service. However, by posting Content using the Service you grant us the right and license to use, modify, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute such Content on and through the Service. You agree that this license includes the right for us to make your Content available to other users of the Service, who may also use your Content subject to these Terms. Women Also Know Stuff has the right but not the obligation to monitor and edit all Content provided by users. In addition, Content found on or through this Service are the property of Women Also Know Stuff or used with permission. You may not distribute, modify, transmit, reuse, download, repost, copy, or use said Content, whether in whole or in part, for commercial purposes or for personal gain, without express advance written permission from us.
Accounts
When you create an account with us, you guarantee that you are above the age of 18, are a woman in the academic field of Political Science, and that the information you provide us is accurate, complete, and current at all times. Inaccurate, incomplete, or obsolete information may result in the immediate termination of your account on the Service. You are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your account and password, including but not limited to the restriction of access to your computer and/or account. You agree to accept responsibility for any and all activities or actions that occur under your account and/or password, whether your password is with our Service or a third-party service. You must notify us immediately upon becoming aware of any breach of security or unauthorized use of your account.
Intellectual Property
The Service and its original content (excluding Content provided by users), features and functionality are and will remain the exclusive property of Women Also Know Stuff and its licensors. The Service is protected by copyright, trademark, and other laws of both the United States and foreign countries. Our trademarks and trade dress may not be used in connection with any product or service without the prior written consent of Women Also Know Stuff. Links To Other Web Sites Our Service may contain links to third party web sites or services that are not owned or controlled by Women Also Know Stuff Women Also Know Stuff has no control over, and assumes no responsibility for the content, privacy policies, or practices of any third party web sites or services. We do not warrant the offerings of any of these entities/individuals or their websites. You acknowledge and agree that Women Also Know Stuff shall not be responsible or liable, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with use of or reliance on any such content, goods or services available on or through any such third party web sites or services. We strongly advise you to read the terms and conditions and privacy policies of any third party web sites or services that you visit.
Termination
We may terminate or suspend your account and bar access to the Service immediately, without prior notice or liability, under our sole discretion, for any reason whatsoever and without limitation, including but not limited to a breach of the Terms. If you wish to terminate your account, you may simply discontinue using the Service, or notify us that you wish to delete your account. All provisions of the Terms which by their nature should survive termination shall survive termination, including, without limitation, ownership provisions, warranty disclaimers, indemnity and limitations of liability.
Indemnification
You agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Women Also Know Stuff and its licensee and licensors, and their employees, contractors, agents, officers and directors, from and against any and all claims, damages, obligations, losses, liabilities, costs or debt, and expenses (including but not limited to attorney's fees), resulting from or arising out of a) your use and access of the Service, by you or any person using your account and password; b) a breach of these Terms, or c) Content posted on the Service.
Limitation Of Liability
In no event shall Women Also Know Stuff, nor its directors, employees, partners, agents, suppliers, or affiliates, be liable for any indirect, incidental, special, consequential or punitive damages, including without limitation, loss of profits, data, use, goodwill, or other intangible losses, resulting from (i) your access to or use of or inability to access or use the Service; (ii) any conduct or content of any third party on the Service; (iii) any content obtained from the Service; and (iv) unauthorized access, use or alteration of your transmissions or content, whether based on warranty, contract, tort (including negligence) or any other legal theory, whether or not we have been informed of the possibility of such damage, and even if a remedy set forth herein is found to have failed of its essential purpose.
Disclaimer
Your use of the Service is at your sole risk. The Service is provided on an "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" basis. The Service is provided without warranties of any kind, whether express or implied, including, but not limited to, implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, non-infringement or course of performance. Women Also Know Stuff, its subsidiaries, affiliates, and its licensors do not warrant that a) the Service will function uninterrupted, secure or available at any particular time or location; b) any errors or defects will be corrected; c) the Service is free of viruses or other harmful components; or d) the results of using the Service will meet your requirements.
Exclusions
Some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion of certain warranties or the exclusion or limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages, so the limitations above may not apply to you.
Governing Law
These Terms shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Arizona and the United States, without regard to its conflict of law provisions. Our failure to enforce any right or provision of these Terms will not be considered a waiver of those rights. If any provision of these Terms is held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court, the remaining provisions of these Terms will remain in effect. These Terms constitute the entire agreement between us regarding our Service, and supersede and replace any prior agreements we might have had between us regarding the Service.
Changes
We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to modify or replace these Terms at any time. If a revision is material we will provide at least 30 days notice prior to any new terms taking effect. What constitutes a material change will be determined at our sole discretion. By continuing to access or use our Service after any revisions become effective, you agree to be bound by the revised terms. If you do not agree to the new terms, you are no longer authorized to use the Service.
Contact Us
If you have any questions about these Terms, please contact us at .