Levin College of Law
Welcome to UF LAW

Diversity at UF Law

  • Diversity at UF Law

    • Diversity Statement

    Your Role and Responsibilities in our Diverse Community:

    Non-discrimination is not only the best and morally correct course of action; it is University policy. University of Florida Regulation 6C1-1.006, Non-Discrimination Policy, provides:

    (1) The University shall actively promote equal opportunity policies and practices conforming to laws against discrimination.

    The University is committed to non-discrimination with respect to race, ethnicity, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, military status, national origin, political opinions or affiliations, and veteran status as protected under the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act. This commitment applies in all areas to students, Academic Personnel (AP), Technical, Executive, Administrative, and Managerial Support (TEAMS) staff, University Support Personnel System (USPS) personnel, and Other Personnel Services (OPS) employees. The University realizes that it must continue to intensify its concern and devote itself to the elimination of conditions from which discrimination springs. In this respect the University accepts the responsibility for solving problems related to these matters. Accordingly, the University will continue to search for the most appropriate ways and means to provide an effective and enduring contribution to the improvement of these relationships.

    (2) It is the policy of the University that each employee and student be allowed to work and study in an environment free from any form of discrimination. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964, and is conduct unbecoming a State employee as provided in Section 110.227, F.S.

    (a) Sexual harassment is defined as unwelcome sexual advances, or requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

    1. Submission to such conduct or request is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment or academic status
    2. Submission to or rejection of such conduct or request by an individual is used as the basis for employment or academic decisions affecting such individual, or
    3. Such conduct or request has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work or academic performance or of creating an intimidating, hostile work-related or academic environment.

    (b) Disciplinary Action.

    1. Any employee or student of the University who is found to have sexually harassed another employee or applicant for employment or student will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal or expulsion.
    2. Any employee or student in a supervisory capacity who has actual knowledge by direct observation or by receipt of a complaint of sexual harassment involving any of those employees he or she supervises or over whomever he or she has managerial authority, and who does not investigate, and, if appropriate, take corrective action or report the matter directly to the President or the President’s designee, shall be subject to disciplinary
      action up to and including dismissal or expulsion.

    (3) Complaints and appeal procedures. Any employee or student who believes that he or she is a victim of discrimination, including sexual harassment as defined above, may pursue informal resolution of the complaint or may file a formal written complaint in accordance with University Rules 6Cl-1.0063 and 6C1-4.012 F.A.C. Employees and students may contact the Vice Provost for Affirmative Action Programs to seek assistance in informally resolving the complaint or in filing a formal complaint or grievance.

    Specific Authority 1001.74(4) FS. Law Implemented 1001.74(10) and (19) FS. History–New 2-23-82, Amended 3-6-85, 11-13-90, 4-30-95, 11-25-03.

    The Levin College of Law faculty has also approved the following statement: “In addition, the College of Law is committed to non-discrimination with respect to gender identity and gender expression.” Faculty Minutes, 4-28-10.

    University of Florida Levin College of Law
    309 Village Drive
    PO Box 117620
    Gainesville, FL 32611
    (352) 273-0804
    Text-Only Version

    Tools

    Website

    Quick Links

    The Florida Constitutional Law Endowment in memory of Justice Ben F. Overton was created by Judge Karen Miller in 2013. This fund supports lectures and presentations by Justices of the Florida Supreme Court at the Fredric G. Levin College of Law.

    HISTORY

    Justice Overton, who earned his B.S. in 1951 and his Juris Doctor in 1952 from the University of Florida, was the first merit appointment to the Florida Supreme Court. Throughout his career he was active in legal education and served as an Adjunct Professor at the Levin College of Law through December 2012, the month of his death. Although he resided at Oak Hammock at the University of Florida, a continuing care retirement community developed in cooperation with UF, he also considered the Florida Supreme Court “home.” Among the high points of his later years was hosting Justices of the Florida Supreme Court in Gainesville and taking his class to Tallahassee to hear oral arguments at the Florida Supreme Court.
    Judge Miller, who earned her B.S. cum laude from New York University in 1974 and her Juris Doctor from New York Law School in 1977, served as Chief Administrative Law Judge of the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, New York City’s business regulatory agency, before she retired to Oak Hammock at the University of Florida. Having accompanied Justice Overton on his excursions to Tallahassee and joined him in welcoming guests to Oak Hammock at the University of Florida, she created the endowment in memory of Justice Overton to ensure that the Levin College of Law continues to have the funding necessary to continue and enhance the interaction between its students and the Florida Supreme Court.

     

    Judge Miller remembered the event that motivated the endowment.

     

    Prior to a dinner at the home of Dean Robert Jerry and Lisa Jerry shortly after Justice Overton’s death, Justice Barbara Pariente and I were discussing a suitable memorial. Justice Pariente, who had been Justice Overton’s colleague on the Florida Supreme Court and who understood the importance to him of the interaction between his students and the Court, suggested the outline of what has become the Overton lectures. Dean Jerry, who has since retired, as has Dean Emeritus Jon Mills, who assumed responsibility for implementing the Overton lectures, were very supportive from the beginning. Since Dean Mills’ retirement, Professor Timothy McClendon, who assisted both Justice Overton and Dean Mills teaching Florida Constitutional Law and who co-authored the recent Florida Constitutional Law casebook, has continued the Overton lectures with the support of Interim Dean Merritt McAlister and CGR director, Professor Danaya Wright.

    Justice Overton was a devoted jurist, educator, and ethical leader of the Florida legal profession. The Overton Lecture Series brings Florida Supreme Court Justices to the University of Florida, Levin College of Law, and serves to introduce students to the inner workings of the Court. CGR and the students of the College of Law extend our deepest gratitude to Judge Karen Miller for making the Overton Lectures possible in perpetuity.

    You can watch an interview for the Florida Historical Society by Mary Adkins, professor emeritus of the UF Levin College of Law, with Justice Overton here.

    Justice Overton was also interviewed for the Samuel Proctor Oral History Project and a transcript of his interview is available at the Smathers Library, and here.
    Justice Overton sat on the Constitution Revision Commission of 1977-78 that proposed a right to privacy in the Florida Constitution. Although it failed as part of the Constitution Revision Commission recommendations, it passed in 1980 when proposed by the legislature. The bill was co-sponsored by our very own Jon Mills. The privacy provision prevailed by greater than 60%. Justice Overton then wrote a concurrence in a critical reproductive rights case in 1989 affirming that the privacy provision of the Florida Constitution included the right to obtain an abortion. That decision was overruled in Planned Parenthood of SW and Central Florida v. Florida. You can read about the role of Justice Overton, Jon Mills – director emeritus of CGR, and the history of the 1989 case here.