My teaching interests and preferences trail my research: I am interested in teaching courses that will benefit from both my interdisciplinary training as well as my comparative perspective. Over the past decade, I have designed and taught classes for students at different levels of instruction ranging from social stratification and global inequality, to international business transactions and family law. In my last two years at Stanford, I was recognized for my commitment to teaching, research, and service with the Vice Provost’s Diversifying Academia, Recruiting Excellence Doctoral Fellowship.

While my teaching interests and experience vary in substance, my pedagogy is guided by a synthesis of the three core principles instrumental to my own learning process – critical engagement, relevance and openness. Training students to share agency in the classroom is an integral part of my pedagogy. At the same time, I remain aware of the limitations of having a strict understanding of “critical engagement”. Beyond the references I make in class, it is crucial that my teaching has “legs”: I want my students to see the relevance of their training in their everyday life and interactions. As in my research, my interdisciplinary training and affinity for global comparisons is a staple element of my teaching. My goal is to train students to evaluate on the basis of intellectual inquiry alongside a deep respect for the power of the relational. I believe that cultivating this balance is essential for our times: especially as environments beyond the classroom increasingly demand our patience for diverse identity, logic and thought.

I am currently (2018-19) teaching courses on the legal profession and global inequality.



Can equality be produced by accident? How would we begin to theorize about such equality and what might be its components? If possible, is it useful? If useful, is it sustainable? If not useful, is it dangerous?

This seminar invites students to approach the constructions of equality, fairness and structural change with fresh eyes. Research shows us that inequality is pervasive and that even when we try to create egalitarian social structures, they are disadvantaged prematurely by a variety of prejudicial frameworks. But what about egalitarian structures that happened by accident – for example, a class that is diverse without someone trying intentionally to curate it so, or a gender-equal law firm without any feminist intention – what do we do with the incidental parity that could be produced by these structures? Is this representation and parity the same as equality? Can true equality be produced by accident? Using examples from historical accounts, contemporary ethnography, mythology, and fiction, we will dissect the potential for (and coordinates of) this theoretical premise of “accidental” equality.

What does it mean to be a lawyer? How do you “think like a lawyer”? Should you think like a lawyer? What are the moral, relational and ethical considerations that ground you when you act in the capacity of a legal professional?

This course is designed to help students think critically about the role of lawyers in society. At its core, it's a primer for legal practice, laying the groundwork for understanding ethical boundaries of practicing law across contexts. Alongside doctrine, however, this course draws from cross-disciplinary perspectives to unpack the ways in which lawyers' work and legal practice can impact the societies they are embedded in. In considering these relationships, this course focusses on two interrelated questions – what kinds of legal professions privilege whom? And how do these paths of entry reproduce different kinds of legal systems?