I have just received a newsletter which has the IU leave policies for
faculty and for staff and will mail a copy of each to Connie.  In
general, the faculty (men and women are included) have a partially-paid
leave (half pay) for birth or adoption or serious illness (one's own or
for caretaking duties) which extends at most to an entire semester,
and it is a leave from teaching only.  Leave taken under this provision
counts as all or part of the FMLA leave.  Staff get just the unpaid FMLA
leave and must take the accrued vacation and personal days they
have first before the unpaid leave begins.

On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Constance E. Bagley wrote:

> Colleagues,
>
> I am doing an informal survey of  college and university parental leave
> policies. I was rather surprised when I discovered that Stanford University
> gives a female  faculty member who gives birth both the quarter in which
> she gives birth off (with full pay) and the next quarter off (also with
> full pay), but gives no paid leave to fathers or adoptive parents. They of
> course do provide the federally mandated unpaid leave. Stanford
> characterizes this as maternity leave but my OB/GYN friends (including the
> chair of OB/GYN @ Stanford) tell me that the physical "impairment"
> associated with giving birth rarely would extend to two quarters.
>
> Two questions: Is Stanford's policy legal? What do other colleges and
> universities do?
>
> Feel free to reply to group (I think others would be interested) or to me
> personally @ [log in to unmask]
>
> Thanks.
>
> Connie Bagley
> Stanford Business School
>
> At 11:18 AM 1/28/99 EST, you wrote:
> >This seems to have met with a dull thud, and it terminated the
> >conversation on impeachment (unless something else did and I missed
> >it).
> >
> >Maybe anyone who knows something about this might want to
> >communicate individually with me. I think it's sort of interesting.
> >
> >Ginny
> >
> >Priority:      normal Date:
> >Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:28:10 EST Reply-to:      "Academy of Legal
> >Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk"
> ><[log in to unmask]> From:          "Virginia Maurer (MAN)"
> ><[log in to unmask]> Subject:       Re: Sv: help for Sally To:
> >         [log in to unmask]
> >
> >Recently I read a biography of Elizabeth I -- I think the author
> >was Somerville. It recounted several instances of "trials"
> >involving, basically, large group process, to determine both facts
> >and result on very sketchy law. For example, Mary Queen of Scots was
> >subject to an inquisition in England of 39 persons (some of them
> >members of the English Privy Council) to determine her role in a
> >conspiracy with the French to murder Elizabeth and become queen of
> >England. She was not provided or permitted counsel, but could and did
> >defend herself. The role of the councillors, best I could tell from
> >the biographer's account, was to present and hear evidence of the
> >conspiracy, and to identify Mary's role in it, and also to determine
> >a punish (death, of course) that could be carried out only with a
> >royal warrant.
> >
> >In addition, I got the idea that at least in late 16th century
> >England individuals (Essex, for example) could be, and were, subject
> >to "impeachment" by Parliament, on the basis of which they could be
> >stripped of title and positions and emoluments, some of which were
> >lucrative. My guess is that the crown had to concur and arguably
> >could have removed at least some of these benefits without
> >impeachment.
> >
> >Granted, this is sketchy, and it is meddling in English history, and
> >it is a process that predated the U.S. constitution by about 200
> >years. But I suspect that understanding of the impeachment
> >process in the U.S. Constitution is more appropriately informed by
> >the history of similar political and legislative institutions in
> >English legal and political history than by post-1789 developments
> >in the judicial context.
> >
> >I haven't read Rehnquist's book on impeachment. Does he do this?
> >
> >In truth, I'll probably never inquire further on this topice, but I
> >wonder whether someone out there on this list knows a lot more about
> >this. I'd be interested.
> >
> >Ginny Maurer
> >
> >
>